Recommended Flash for Digital XT

[PoohJen]

Newbie-ish seeking external flash from Santa. Time to do some research.

I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT, use a Sigma 18-125 lens, am about to purchase a Sigma 70-300 APO lens.

when would I need other than the built in flash?

recommended brands? expected price range for an average user?

anything to look out for, stay away from?

used on eBay okay?

Thanks for sharing your experiences and expertise!

 

[NJDad18]

Jen,

Sigma make a good flash for the XT and it's about $150. It is a good value. Canon makes 2 good flashes but they are around $300.

The built in flash is really not strong enough for flash photography. A certain photographer from north of the border used to use this flash until she bought the more expensive Metz flash. She highly recommended the Sigma flash along with the Sigma 18-125 lens.

 

[PoohJen]

Can't beat that recommendation!

Thanks!

 

[PoohJen]

Can anyone tell me what this means?

"the AF assist on the Canon flashes will cover all the focus points on a 350D (Rebel XT), and 20D, whereas the Sigma will only illuminate the center AF reliably."

 

[mabas9395]

Can anyone tell me what this means?

"the AF assist on the Canon flashes will cover all the focus points on a 350D (Rebel XT), and 20D, whereas the Sigma will only illuminate the center AF reliably."

I have the 430ex for my Rebel XT and I LOVE it. It is a whole different world compared to the on-board flash.

What I think the quote means is that the Rebel XT not only focuses on the focus point but it also takes an exposure reading from the focus point in order to know how strong to fire the flash. (that part I'm pretty sure of) The part I'm guessing on is that the Sigma flash can read the center point exposure reading just fine but when it tries to read one of the other focus points it can't read the exposure properly so it gives you an unreliable illumination.

 

[boBQuincy]

I have Canon's 220 EX flash, and while it is a great improvement over the built-in flash it is kinda' small and doesn't do bounce.

I plan to get Canon's 430, a coworker has one and it is *very* nice.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Why should you get another flash?

1) A good external flash gives you the ability to bounce the flash. That's great if you have a reasonable height neutral colored ceiling. It gives you much better lighting than a direct blast from a flash on the camera.

2) It gives you more power. The built in flash is quite weak.

3) With an ETTL-2 flash, your camera can do a much better job of getting the best flash balance.

4) Better focusing in low light situations. The flash can shine a red/infrared pattern on your subject which helps the camera focus. Some cameras (not sure if the Rebel XT is one) can shine a white light on their own for flash assist. This works, but it's not as discrete.

5) The flash is further from the camera, so you have fewer problems with red-eye.

6) Separate batteries. This is good/bad. You have to fill the flash with it's own batteries. On the plus side, it doesn't drain your camera's battery. Also on the plus side, it tends to recharge faster.

7) External flashes often have faster flash sync times, so you can use the flash at a higher shutter speed. I'm not sure about the Rebel XT.

8) Because the external flash is usually higher, you can use longer/wider lenses before you start to have problems with the lens casting a shadow in your picture. This was a big problem with the older, shorter built in flashes, but may still be an issue on larger, wider lenses like the 17-40 or 16-35.

9) Wider flash coverage. External flashes often have a somewhat wider flash pattern.

10) Zoom. External flashes often have the ability to zoom in, which allows you to focus more of the power of the flash on what will be in the picture.

Flash photography at night is hard. The biggest problem most people face is that the light from the flash falls off quickly. If you've got someone 8 feet from the camera and a building 16 feet from the camera, the building will only get 1/4 of the light that the person gets. You often see this with flash pictures where the subjects show up fine but the background is almost completely dark. There are ways to mitigate this, but the require knowledge, skill, and usually a tripod.

The most underused flash situation is bright sunlight. Using a flash in these situations is called "fill-in flash." It's great for doing things like illuminating someone's face under a hat. It's also great when your subject is in the shade and the background is in sunlight. Without a flash, that situation usually leaves you with an overexposed background or an underexposed subject.

I like the 580EX because it's powerful. It's ETTL-II. It has gives you lots of manual control. It can be used as a master or a slave. It cycles really fast. On the downside, it's relatively expensive and bulky.

The 430EX is a good compromise on cost. It's less powerful but still reasonably powered. It can't be used as a master, but if you're asking about flashes here, you're probably not interested or ready to start working with multiple flashes anyway.

I'd avoid the 220EX. It's not that much more powerful than the built in flash. It's hardly taller, if at all. It can't bounce, which is a fatal flaw in my book.

I've been told that there are some good 3rd party flashes, so you might be able to get a better bargain that way. Unless you plan on handling your flash exposure manually, I'd recommend one that supports ETTL-II (or at least ETTL).

 

[PoohJen]

Great advice everybody! And thanks so much Mark for the thoughtful explanations.


But I admit...I have no idea what ETTL means.

So I'm looking at the 430EX, and the Kelly recommendation (Sigma around $150) and Sigma makes another one around $200; I'm still trying to figure out the differences in the two sigma models.

Do I want to have manual control? (I suspect I'll grow into it?)

 

[MICKEY88]

Great advice everybody! And thanks so much Mark for the thoughtful explanations.


But I admit...I have no idea what ETTL means.

So I'm looking at the 430EX, and the Kelly recommendation (Sigma around $150) and Sigma makes another one around $200; I'm still trying to figure out the differences in the two sigma models.

Do I want to have manual control? (I suspect I'll grow into it?)

not sure about the sigma flashes for canon, but I know they have 2 for minolta, and one works with digital slrs and the other one doesn't, and the price difference was about the same as you are quoting..

 

[MarkBarbieri]

E-TTL stands for something like Evaluative Through The Lens. It basically works like this. A fraction of second before your camera takes the picture, the flash fires off a quick burst of light. The camera evaluates the exposure with this burst of light and adjusts the flash output power accordingly. Even smarter than that, it assumes that your selected auto-focus point is on your main subject and it meters off of that.

A couple of things can bite you with this. First, if your subject is unusually bright or dark, that can throw off the E-TTL metering. This is similar to shooting any really bright or dark subject. Your camera is assuming that your subject is grey. If it is white, the camera assumes that it's very brighly lit gray and underexposes it so that it will look gray. If it is black, the camera assumes that it is poorly lit gray and overexposes it so that it will look gray.

The second problem that occurs is when you focus and recompose. Let's say that you are taking a picture of two people standing near the left and right edges of the frame. Most people will aim the camera at one of them, press the shutter button half-way down so that it focuses, then move the camera so that the people are in the right position. This works fine when you aren't using the flash, but when you are, it now tries to meter off of whatever happens to be where your focus point is now pointing to.

E-TTLII changes the focus point stuff. It gets rather complicated, so I'll just point you to this explanation by Canon's Chuck Westfall.

So basically, E-TTLII is a lot smarter than E-TTL, which is much smarter than just firing off the flash and some random brightness level. If you really understand metering and have the time to do so, you can probably do a much better job manually setting up your flash. If you like to trust your camera to meter things for you, E-TTLII is the way to go when possible. Flash photography is really hard, don't make it any harder than it needs to be.

 

[boBQuincy]

I'd avoid the 220EX. It's not that much more powerful than the built in flash. It's hardly taller, if at all. It can't bounce, which is a fatal flaw in my book.

All of your other points are right on, so I suspect someone gave you bad information on this one.
The 220EX is a good bit more powerful than the built-in flash, about 6 times more powerful than the one on my 10D. That's still not saying a lot.

The 220EX is about half as powerful as the 430EX, and the extra light sure would come in handy! I needed an inexpensive flash quickly so I got the 220 but the lack of a bounce feature is enough to make me wish I had gone for a higher model.

I believe in matching Canon cameras with Canon accessories, it just works better. I see a 430EX in my future!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

As for the Sigma flashes, the only two E-TTL II flashes that I am aware of are the EF-500 DG ST and the EF-500 DG SUPER. Make sure that you get the ones designed for Canon because they also make them for other bodies. The only differences that I know of between these two are that the Super gives you more control of the power level of the flash.

The guide numbers (a way to compare relative power between flashes) are 43 for the Canon 430EX, 50 for Sigma EF-500, and 58 for the Canon 580EX.

So for cost, the Sigma EF-500 DG ST sounds like the best value. Canon is always the safer choice, but you pay a premium for that safety. Because Sigma has to reverse engineer their interfaces, there is always a small chance that their equipment will be incompatible with future cameras or may not function properly in all circumstances. I've never heard of that happening with a flash.

One other advantage for Canon is the inter-operation with other Canon flashes in master/slave relationships. I'm not sure whether the Sigma flashes can do that.

 

[PoohJen]

yup, those are the two Sigmas I'm looking at. and the 430 ex.

VERY COOL re: the E-TTL info! Thanks, I learned alot!

 

[WillCAD]

I'd avoid the 220EX. It's not that much more powerful than the built in flash. It's hardly taller, if at all.

Totally and completely incorrect.

I have had a 220EX for several years and have been completely satisfied with it. It certainly can't compete with the bigger, more capable Speedlights, but it is a vast improvement over the pop-up flash in any Canon EOS camera. It talks to Canon EOS cameras in their own language, and the IR focus-assist light makes it a lot easier to take pics in low light situations.

Of course, the 220EX does not have more advanced features such as adjustable head angle for bounce flash, or built-in flash compensation, but it is a world above the pop-up flashes and is not terribly expensive, either.

For the record, the 220EX is 3-5/8" tall, whereas the pop-up flash on my Digital Rebel sits approximately 1-1/2" above the hot shoe. And the 220EX has a guide number of 72, whereas the pop-up flash on a Rebel XTI is approximately 13.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Totally and completely incorrect

I guess I am wrong about the height issue.

As for the power though, you have to be careful to compare guide numbers in the same units; you used meters for the built in and feet for the 220. The comparable guide numbers are 13m for the Rebel XT and 22m for the 220EX. That's not a huge differencem particularly in comparison with flashes that have guide numbers of 43, 50, and 58 respectively.

The 220EX does do autofocus assist without relying on strobing the flash, which is nice. So do all of the other add-on flashes being discussed here.

The 220 doesn't do E-TTL 2, which is bad. The Rebel XT (but not the older Rebel) built in flash does. That means that for a Rebel XT owner using the 220EX means taking a significant step backwards in flash metering capabilities compared with just using the built-in flash or even off brands that support E-TTL 2. So while it does talk to Canon's "in their own language," it uses a now outdated form of that language. At the same time, it looks like Sigma has taught their flashes to use the latest Canon language.

As agreed, it lacks bounce. To me, this is a critical ommission.I would consider that an essential feature in any flash where the user intends to take pictures indoors.

Using direct flash is usually a last resort for me when all of my other lighting options have been exhausted and even then I try to minimize the amount of lighting that comes directly from camera. The reason is that lighting your subject directly from the camera eliminates all of the shadows that we use to perceive depth and texture and we are left with a very flat looking picture. With a typical indoor flash photo, I'll bounce the flash from the ceiling to illuminate my subject with a diffuse light above them. I'll also bounce some of the light from the flash directly at the subject to help reduce the contrast in the shadows. This is done with the built in white card on some flashes or by holding a white index card at the back of the flash with a rubber band.

As for price, the Sigma is about $30 or $40 more than the 220EX. That's not a large dollar difference for a flash that can bounce, has more than twice the guide number, and has E-TTL 2 metering capabilities. My personal preference is usually to buy Canon and not worry about any compatibility issues, but if I were choosing between flashes and didn't want to spend the money to get a 430EX or 580EX, it would be a simple decision to get the far more capable Sigma.

With that said, I should point out that I have no personal experience with the Sigma flashes and am relying on their claims that they support E-TTL 2 appropriately. Still, for me personally, I'd rather go back to a manual flash that bounces than shoot with a fully automated one that doesn't. It's that important to me.

 

[WillCAD]

I'm not trying to compare the 220EX to those other more capable flashes. I'm just saying that characterizing it as "no better than the pop-up flash" is untrue and unfair. The 220EX is Canon's lowest-end flash at only about $115-$130 online, is guaranteed to work flawlessly with Canon bodies without any compatability issues, has far more power than the pop-up, sits up significanly higher to reduce red-eye, and has its own independent power supply to avoid draining the camera's batteries when used.

I view the 220EX as an excellent starter flash for those who take casual pics but need more power than a pop-up flash. It's great for carrying around WDW because it fits in your pocket, where the Sigmas and the larger Canons are much more awkward.

I think you have fallen into a classic trap when reviewing equipment - you assume that nobodys needs are less than yours. You must rememebr that there are lots of people out there who may own an SLR like one of the Digital Rebel series but don't take full advantage of all the features and still use the camera for simple, casual vacation photography. Those folks essentially use their cameras like giant point-and-shoots; most of the time, that's how I use mine. Keep that in mind, because it means that a "critical omission" like no bounce capability in the 220EX means absolutely nothing to those folks, making it a perfectly viable, even preferable, alternative to those who want lower price, complete simplicity, and total compatability in an external flash.

 

[boBQuincy]

For photos of people I use a diffuser on my 220EX. The diffuser reduces the light output to where the 220 really does not go any further than the built-in flash. *However*, the diffuser makes a great difference in the quality of the light, making it much softer than without the diffuser.
For portraits I wouldn't be without one (unless I had a bounce unit).

Btw, I couldn't find any diffusers specifically for the 220, I use the generic ones that attach with velcro.

Because of all this, if your flash needs are greater than just "more light" I would recommend something more than the 220EX. If more range or faster cycling is all you need then the 220 should be acceptable.

Me, I want more...

 

[MarkBarbieri]

One of the best things about forums like this is that they allow people to post different opinions which can be much more useful to readers than just hearing one person's view. It looks like WillCad and I simply disagree about the general usefulness of the 220EX.

I am happy to concede that I was wrong about the height advantage offered by the 220EX. I also admit that I discounted the value in it being a somewhat more pocketable.

I'm sure where the quote "no better than the pop-up flash" came from. I don't recall saying it. I did say that I don't think it's much more powerful than the built-in flash, but I guess that's misleading. It would have been more accurate to say that it is roughly twice as powerful as the built in flash about about half as powerful as the 430EX or the Sigma 500 when shot at wide angle. The advantage for the latter two flashes increases even more when zoomed in and shooting directly because those flashes, unlike the 220EX (I think) and the built-in flash can zoom. The 220EX is certainly not more powerful by a 72 to 13 ratio as implied earlier.

you assume that nobodys needs are less than yours.

That's simply not correct. Just because I'm advocating for something above the low end doesn't mean that I feel that everyone needs what I need. I'm not advocating that people run out and buy a full studio flash set or a few of 580EX's and an ST-E2. In my comments about the 220EX, I'm trying to caution people against being penny-wise and pound foolish.

For the people that really want a nice point-and-shoot and would never think to bounce their flash anyway, a 220EX might make sense. Ditto for people that put a premium on small size. However, anyone that buys one and gets at all serious about flash photography is likely to want to replace it with a bounce flash. Being able to indirectly light your subject is just too useful of a feature to turn down. In fact, in a great many situations, I'd prefer to shoot with a basic flash that bounces over the nicest E-TTL 2 metering direct flash.

is guaranteed to work flawlessly with Canon bodies without any compatability issues

I have to stress that for owners of newer Canon cameras (including the Rebel XT), that's a very misleading statement. The 220EX is not E-TTL 2 compatible. Using one on a Rebel XT, 20D, or other E-TTL 2 camera will cause you to lose metering capabilities that the camera is capable of. In fact, for metering it is worse than the built-in flash. So it is compatible in the sense that the flash will work, but not compatible in the sense that it doesn't work with the newer metering capabilities Canon provides and that even Sigma supports with it's newer flashes.

 

[mabas9395]

I have a 430ex for my XT. Get one and you will not regret it.

 

[MICKEY88]

I view the 220EX as an excellent starter flash for those who take casual pics but need more power than a pop-up flash. It's great for carrying around WDW because it fits in your pocket, where the Sigmas and the larger Canons are much more awkward.

while this statement may be true, it is contradictory to this way of thinking....I leave my lens cap in my camera bag, and my camera bag in the room.

A camera is useless if it is not accessible when you need to take a shot, and it is inaccessible if it is in a bag, has a lens cap on, or is sitting in your hotel room. That's why I carry my camera with me all day at the parks, on a strap, with no bag, and leave the lens cap back in the room.
.

this is why I carry my dslr around WDW with the flash on it at all times, I would not want to miss getting the best shot possible, because my flash was in my pocket when I needed it for fill flash..


having worked in a camera store for a few years I saw way too many people buy the cheapest flash, thinking it was all they needed, only to come back 1-12 months later, asking why the flash wouldn't do a good job at 20 feet or more.


if you only use your flash once or twice a year, maybe the smallest flash would be sufficient, but for anyone who thinks they might use the camera on a regular basis, it's well worth it to get a more advanced flash,

my experience has been that camera companies don't change flashes nearly as frequently as camera bodies, so if you buy their latest and best flash, you can most likely use it for 2-3 generations of cameras..