External flashes

[We-Luv-Disney]

I currently have 16GB worth of CF cards for my 40D. I will take all of them with me to WDW. I shot RAW only so I figure Ill get about 1500 images on those cards. My laptop went bye bye last year so I have to keep my images on the cards till we get home. I might pick up a few 2GB cards before we go, you can never have too much memory!

 

[Khokhonutt]

I carry 2 4GB CF cards at this point. I've considered getting more, but am now considering another option. I shoot exclusively in RAW now, there's just so much I can do with lightroom to recover RAW files.

I was discussing my current config with a buddy of mine. -- My laptop is an older machine, but not so old that I can justify a new one yet. Lightroom (my only RAW viewer at this point) runs fine on my desktop machine, but is pretty slow on my laptop. -- I was looking for a faster RAW viewer and he suggested I look at the digital camera backup solutions by www.wolverinedata.com.

They have some pretty cool options, from compact, relatively inexpensive units to more expenive units that are similar to the high end Zune/Ipod video options. The unique things about their products are:

- They come with slots for most memory cards. So while your on a trip, or even in the parks, you can drop your card in the machine, transfer files, format the card and keep going.

- They read and display (for the units with view screens) raw images.

My wife hates how my mind works on these things, but I figure if you consider the prices on decent, fast cards, the price on the smaller display versions aren't all that out of whack. Considering the fact that it prolongs the time before I need a new laptop, that helps as well.

Just some additional food for thought.

Jeff

 

[MICKEY88]

My important lesson learned is to bring extra lenses... 2 years ago getting off the monorail at MK a man bumped me and my camera slid off my shoulder and hit the concrete lense first and I spent the rest of the trip shooting with my 75/300 lense. Needless to say I had a lot of fabulous closeups!!

a more important lesson would be to always have the strap around your neck, rather than just on a shoulder, that way it can't slide off..

 

[MICKEY88]

http://www.mydigitaldiscount.com/Ca...:Transcend+133X-300X+UDMA+Compact+Flash+Cards

 

[Gdad]

+1 for keeping to 2GB cards. I have a dozen or so but avoid the larger cards.

 

[orchjoe]

I just realized that I said compaq instead of compact....

I guess I need to enroll in a remedial spelling course. Oh well… I will blame it on being up late night and surfing the DIS.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Which do you recommend for on camera flash -- for those times when I don't want to lug around my sb800. (Which I have yet to learn how to use. I am such a sad sack...but I have lots of new toys, don't I?...) I'm going on a trip in a few weeks and hate the on camera flash so I want something to help me take better shots without lugging around the sb800.

I was looking at Gary Fongs' http://www.amazon.com/Gary-Fong-Puf...?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1190386566&sr=8-26

and this one:


Then there's this one: http://www.amazon.com/LumiQuest-Ins...6?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1190386994&sr=8-1

and this one: http://www.amazon.com/SunPak-DFU-01...6?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1190386685&sr=8-9

I saw Gary Fong's on Nikonians store, so I'm guessing that one may work better for Nikon built in flash?

Thanks in advance!

 

[We-Luv-Disney]

Hmmmmm...these links are not working

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Hmmmmm...these links are not working

Sorry, I'll repost.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Thanks...

 

[MICKEY88]

the on camera flash is so limited distance wise, if you diffuse it will it be enough,


I guess I'm old school, the inconvenience of lugging the full size flash is so worth it for the improved quality of pictures

 

[boBQuincy]

Fong provides greatly exaggerated "with" & "without" images for the "Puffer" but doesn't mention how much the range is reduced.

I have two LumiQuest diffusers for a Canon 220EX and at ISO 400 the useable range is down to about 15 feet. The built-in flash is much less powerful than even the 220EX, so expect a very limited range.

The inexpensive diffusers do improve the image, just not nearly as much as the advertising hype claims.

 

[SharonLowe]

Which do you recommend for on camera flash -- for those times when I don't want to lug around my sb800. (Which I have yet to learn how to use. I am such a sad sack...but I have lots of new toys, don't I?...) I'm going on a trip in a few weeks and hate the on camera flash so I want something to help me take better shots without lugging around the sb800.

I was looking at Gary Fongs' http://www.amazon.com/Gary-Fong-Puf...?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1190386566&sr=8-26

and this one:


Then there's this one: http://www.amazon.com/LumiQuest-Ins...6?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1190386994&sr=8-1

and this one: http://www.amazon.com/SunPak-DFU-01...6?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1190386685&sr=8-9

I saw Gary Fong's on Nikonians store, so I'm guessing that one may work better for Nikon built in flash?

Thanks in advance!

Just take some tissue and tape it on the flash. Cheap and works better!

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Just take some tissue and tape it on the flash. Cheap and works better!

SharonLowe, will any kind of tissue work?

Thanks and thanks to all who responded!

 

[SharonLowe]

SharonLowe, will any kind of tissue work?

Thanks and thanks to all who responded!

Yep - toilet or nose. Try at home first to see if double layer or single layer better.

 

[boBQuincy]

Yep - toilet or nose. Try at home first to see if double layer or single layer better.

One point that was not addressed, make sure the tissue is unused!

More seriously, check to see if the flash still has enough range with the tissue in front of it.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

One point that was not addressed, make sure the tissue is unused!

More seriously, check to see if the flash still has enough range with the tissue in front of it.

Ha-ha! I'll make sure to check the range and the tissue and thanks for the response.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

What's the purpose of the tissue? Is it to get broader coverage or to soften the light?

My flash, a Canon 580EX, comes with a built in diffuser that you can put over the flash when you want broader coverage. It doesn't really soften the light. I think you would have to have something larger than the flash head for that.

Here is my reasonining. The coverage area is determined by the angle at which light leaves the flash. If you focus it by zooming the flash, you'll get a smaller coverage area, but you'll get more light in that area. If you diffuse (scatter) the light coming out of the flash, it will go off in all directions. That means that it will light a larger area but with the same amount of light as it had before. Because of that, the light will be less bright in any one place. There will also be some light lost to the diffuser.

As for softening the light, my understanding is that the softness of the light depends on a combination of the size and distance of the light source from the subject. The bigger or closer the light source, the softer the light. Conversely, the smaller or farther the light source, the harder the light. Putting tissue directly on the flash will not appreciably change either the size or distance of the light source, so it shouldn't appreciably change it's softness. If you made a shield that was significantly larger than the flash head, that would soften the light.

I suppose that if you were in a small enough room, you could argue that the diffuser softens the light by sending a lot of it towards the walls and ceilings and that the bounces from those surfaces act to soften the light. If that's your plan, you'd probably be better off just bouncing the light off the ceiling.

 

[jamescousteau]

Hi boBQUINCY,

You mentioned that you have 2 Lumiquest diffusers that fit your Canon 220EX Speedlite -- which ones are they if you don't mind me asking? I have a Canon G7 that I use a 220EX with & am desperately seeking a solution for diffusion. Thanks!

 

[MICKEY88]

What's the purpose of the tissue? Is it to get broader coverage or to soften the light?

My flash, a Canon 580EX, comes with a built in diffuser that you can put over the flash when you want broader coverage. It doesn't really soften the light. I think you would have to have something larger than the flash head for that.

Here is my reasonining. The coverage area is determined by the angle at which light leaves the flash. If you focus it by zooming the flash, you'll get a smaller coverage area, but you'll get more light in that area. If you diffuse (scatter) the light coming out of the flash, it will go off in all directions. That means that it will light a larger area but with the same amount of light as it had before. Because of that, the light will be less bright in any one place. There will also be some light lost to the diffuser.

As for softening the light, my understanding is that the softness of the light depends on a combination of the size and distance of the light source from the subject. The bigger or closer the light source, the softer the light. Conversely, the smaller or farther the light source, the harder the light. Putting tissue directly on the flash will not appreciably change either the size or distance of the light source, so it shouldn't appreciably change it's softness. If you made a shield that was significantly larger than the flash head, that would soften the light.

I suppose that if you were in a small enough room, you could argue that the diffuser softens the light by sending a lot of it towards the walls and ceilings and that the bounces from those surfaces act to soften the light. If that's your plan, you'd probably be better off just bouncing the light off the ceiling.

I think the OP was talking about the built in flash, which makes it hard t bounce off of the ceiling..

I also don't follow the logic that the light source being farther away, makes the light harder,rather than softer... one way of softening studio lighting and reducing shadows is to move the lights farther from your subject..