External flashes

[Experiment_626]

the sigma 500 dg super and 530 dg super can be used wirelessly with sony dslrs, and work quite seemlessly, they come with their own little stands to be used wirlessly just like the minolta/sony flashes..

have you checked to see if they work with Nikon..

According to what I turned up the last couple of days, they do. However, you have to put them on the hot shoe to set them into that mode, for some reason, which isn't true of Nikon's own speedlights. And they didn't seem to me to be significantly less expensive than an SB-600.

 

[MICKEY88]

According to what I turned up the last couple of days, they do. However, you have to put them on the hot shoe to set them into that mode, for some reason, which isn't true of Nikon's own speedlights. And they didn't didn't seem to me to be significantly less expensive than an SB-600.

I have to put mine in the hotshoe, but it's easier than going into the menu on the flash, I simply set my camera to wireless, then remove the flash, then slide the other flash on to set it, it takes a few seconds.. if buying multiples the price difference is significant at least for sony it was..

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Comparing the Sigma EF 530 DG Super to the Nikon SB 600 is not really a good comparison. The Nikon has a guide # of 30m-98ft @ ISO 100 vs the Sigma's 53m-174ft @ ISO 100. The zoom range for the Nikon is 24-85mm vs the Sigma's 24-105mm. The Nikon does not have the negative tilt, whereas the Sigma has -7 degrees. The Sigma is a more powerful and versatile flash than the SB-600 and needs to be compared to the Nikon's top of the line speedlite (SB-900) and when that occurs it is significantly cheaper ($470 for Nikon and $208 for the Sigma). We need to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Don't get me wrong, the SB-600 is a good flash and if it floats your boat go for it. Just be careful of comparisons.

 

[MICKEY88]

Comparing the Sigma EF 530 DG Super to the Nikon SB 600 is not really a good comparison. The Nikon has a guide # of 30m-98ft @ ISO 100 vs the Sigma's 53m-174ft @ ISO 100. The zoom range for the Nikon is 24-85mm vs the Sigma's 24-105mm. The Nikon does not have the negative tilt, whereas the Sigma has -7 degrees. The Sigma is a more powerful and versatile flash than the SB-600 and needs to be compared to the Nikon's top of the line speedlite (SB-900) and when that occurs it is significantly cheaper ($470 for Nikon and $208 for the Sigma. We need to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Don't get me wrong, the SB-600 is a good flash and if it floats your boat go for it. Just be careful of comparisons.

good point

I didn't have time to pull stats, thanks for posting that,

I have 3 sets of studio lights, and am still thinking of another sigma or 2 for location shoots

 

[Experiment_626]

I had a feeling they weren't exactly comparable in specs -- otherwise, why would the prices be so close (knowing Sigma's general business model). However, I think the SB-600 would work for most people who aren't doing portraits as a business.

There are other differences worth at least a mention -- one being that the Sigmas have a plastic "foot" and the Nikon's foot is metal. I suspect the Nikon might handle a bit more force before snapping. I had an aftermarket flash years ago (as film was beginning to wane) that I really liked, but it got hit (not that hard) by a football that took a bad bounce. Snapped clean off -- and the plastic foot was the weak point. Now, I can't say a flash with a metal foot would have fared better, but I can't say it wouldn't.

I've got nothing against Sigma, and if I needed the higher power and other features at a lower price than the directly comparable Nikon, I wouldn't hesitate. I ran the comparison the way I did because I already have one SB-600, and I don't want to ask the university to pay for two flashes when I really only need one. It may not be true, but the idea of working with two different speedlights -- different makes, models and power -- makes me uneasy. And the fact remains that I can buy another SB-600 for no more than I'd spend for the Sigma, and I think that the Nikon flash would meet my fairly simple needs just fine.

 

[MICKEY88]

I had a feeling they weren't exactly comparable in specs -- otherwise, why would the prices be so close (knowing Sigma's general business model). However, I think the SB-600 would work for most people who aren't doing portraits as a business.

There are other differences worth at least a mention -- one being that the Sigmas have a plastic "foot" and the Nikon's foot is metal. I suspect the Nikon might handle a bit more force before snapping. I had an aftermarket flash years ago (as film was beginning to wane) that I really liked, but it got hit (not that hard) by a football that took a bad bounce. Snapped clean off -- and the plastic foot was the weak point. Now, I can't say a flash with a metal foot would have fared better, but I can't say it wouldn't.

I've got nothing against Sigma, and if I needed the higher power and other features at a lower price than the directly comparable Nikon, I wouldn't hesitate. I ran the comparison the way I did because I already have one SB-600, and I don't want to ask the university to pay for two flashes when I really only need one. It may not be true, but the idea of working with two different speedlights -- different makes, models and power -- makes me uneasy. And the fact remains that I can buy another SB-600 for no more than I'd spend for the Sigma, and I think that the Nikon flash would meet my fairly simple needs just fine.

valid points, however I'd rather go with the more powerful flash for the money, it's better to have the extra power and not need it, than to need it and not have it...

as for different makes and powers I would think it would be rather easy to get the settings right, just use the more powerful for your main light and the other for your flash, just like using studio lights, set the proper ratios.

and as for the plastic foot, I've ben walking the PA ren faire every weekend for several years with the sigmas and haven't had a problem, actually from what I've always heard the most common cause of foot breakage is over tightening,

as with so many things in photography there really is no right or wrong, just personal preference or comfort levels..

 

[MarkBarbieri]

This is a thread for shots taken using flashes. On camera, off camera, studio lights, it's all good. Just tell us what you did if it isn't obvious.


Off camera 580EX shot through a CTO (orange gel) and a small umbrella. Shot in aperture priority at f/3.5 and -1/3EV

A 580EX and a 420EX shot through CTOs set on the ground in front of the fire.

Pentax W30 P&S with on-camera flash in full auto

 

[Geoff_M]

Michigan Senate Chambers, 2 speedlights w/ PocketWizards in the Gallery:

Michigan House Chambers, 2 speedlights w/ PocketWizards in the Gallery:

 

[WDWFigment]

SB-600 Speedlight w/ blue gel off camera on Piggy. Didn't like the look of the blue on Piggy, so I corrected it in post, although I think it might look worse now.

MuppetVision flashD by Tom Bricker (WDWFigment), on Flickr

SB-600 off camera; fired multiple times with a red/magenta gel on the right, dashed over to left during same long exposure and used a green gel and fired multiple times to Pluto's left. I really need another flash for things like this...

The Experiments of Tomorrow by Tom Bricker (WDWFigment), on Flickr

 

[mom2rtk]

^^^Tom, that's amazingly creative and a great result. Love it!

 

[handicap18]

2 Speedlights off camera:

2 speedlights off camera, 1 diffused pop-up and 2 additional work lights with 75 watt bulbs to help wash out the background:

Here is one with rear curtain sync with the flash at -2 IIRC. Just enough so you can see him. As close to the camera as he was (11.5mm focal length) I didn't need a lot of flash especially because I wanted the park to be well lit:

 

[GoofyontheHiSeas]

Nikon SB600 Shoot-through umbrella 1/4 CTO gel

 

[Commando2319]

I am headed to the World again in less than 2 weeks. And am very excited to take a couple thousand more photos. Especially with my new 7D camera.

Normally, I shoot entirely without the flash. I have preferred this as I like the more natural light pictures without the foreground bright and the background so dark you can't see anything.

But have had difficulties in the past when taking photos in low-light areas. And the worst for me is the Character Meeting with Mickey and friends in Epcot. The background always looks great while the faces are dim.

So I am thinking of trying more photos with the flash. And even considering purchasing an external flash to use instead of the built-in one.

Does anyone have any advice to an intermediate-at-best photographer looking to take better photos? Do I dive into using the flash? When and where are the best times to use one and best time to not?

 

[ChiSoxKeith]

I would vote flash. After seeing what people on these boards do with flashes even on bright sunny days, I have bumped up the speedlite on my list of things to get.

 

[GrillMouster]

Don't fear flash. You just have to learn how to use it. If the flash is too bright lower its power. There's lots more to learn about using flash, like shaping, diffusing, bouncing, and balancing it with ambient, but "less than two weeks" isn't a lot of time.

 

[zackiedawg]

I would say it comes down to personal preference - if you want to use flash, I'd recommend getting an external flash as they are vastly superior and much more controllable...and that would also come with learning more about using flash. Or if you don't want to use flash, that's OK too...you've got a camera capable of very good high ISO performance, so you could just learn more about how best to meter those types of scenes to get the best results and go with the natural light look. On-board flashes are really not great - they're there for emergency use when needed, or for a little fill light, but in general I think most would agree learning better exposure without it, or getting a proper external flash and learning how to use it would both be the better choices.

With respect to your comment that some of the shots don't come out so hot...might I inquire what mode the camera was in, and what metering mode you were using? These can make quite a difference...even with the kit lens, you can get much better results with your camera and should have no problem getting a proper exposure on the characters indoors without blur by using 'Av' or Aperture Priority mode with the ISO set to Auto, or manually set to 1600 or 3200...this should give you a fast enough shutter speed...the metering mode if you have been using 'wide' you may want to try switching it to 'center-weighted' or 'spot' so that the metering will get the character's faces properly metered and not the background.

 

[GrillMouster]

The OP referred specifically to the indoor character greeting area by Innoventions West. If memory serves me correct, each themed backdrop has continuous light on it. Transmitters on the PhotoPass photographer's camera triggers strobes mounted up high, exposing the costumed character and guest. When you take a picture, the lighted background appears fine, but the character is underexposed because your camera doesn't trigger their mounted strobes. Changing your exposure for the characters may result in overexposed background, and it doesn't solve the problem of the background being much brighter than the subjects. In this situation, you need to add light to the foreground. Flash is a good way to do that. In order to avoid what the OP described (overexposed foreground and underexposed background) you'll need to balance the flash and ambient light. There are a few different way to do this, but you'll get better results if you take the time to learn and understand it, so you can think and troubleshoot on the spot.

 

[Commando2319]

The OP referred specifically to the indoor character greeting area by Innoventions West. If memory serves me correct, each themed backdrop has continuous light on it. Transmitters on the PhotoPass photographer's camera triggers strobes mounted up high, exposing the costumed character and guest. When you take a picture, the lighted background appears fine, but the character is underexposed because your camera doesn't trigger their mounted strobes. Changing your exposure for the characters may result in overexposed background, and it doesn't solve the problem of the background being much brighter than the subjects. In this situation, you need to add light to the foreground. Flash is a good way to do that. In order to avoid what the OP described (overexposed foreground and underexposed background) you'll need to balance the flash and ambient light. There are a few different way to do this, but you'll get better results if you take the time to learn and understand it, so you can think and troubleshoot on the spot.

Wow. I knew there was something odd with the lighting there. That makes total sense. I'll definitely be using a flash there now.

What about MNSSHP? I will be going for my first time and don't know what the lighting conditions will be like.

Do most of you use your flash for the parade and character greetings at the Halloween Party?

 

[zackiedawg]

The OP referred specifically to the indoor character greeting area by Innoventions West. If memory serves me correct, each themed backdrop has continuous light on it.

That would make sense for that one being a worst-case scenario, and a good case for a flash...I know little about the actual character greeting spots as I've never seen one. I'd imagine that not all of the areas are afflicted by the illuminated backgrounds and might be OK without flash, but sounds like this one in particular is a flash recommended spot.

 

[mom2rtk]

I actually started a thread with the same title a while back discussing whether I should use a flash or not during the MNSSHP or MVMCP night parades. It was a mixed opinion. I'd post the link, but for some reason can't get my copy and past function to work right now..... I'll try again later if someone else doesn't have the link handy.

At Disney I always bring my flash. I like character shots, and I want the faces properly illuminated, so I use the flash, but dial it down as needed.