If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 300D FEL
Hi,
I've been playing around with ways to diffuse the built-in flash on my 300D and wondered about the following. AIUI the pre-flash is supposed to calculate the flash exposure and fires again for the actual shot but with I'm not seeing this happening. With a simple diffuser in front of the flash the shots are a good stop under exposed. Yet, if I use the Flash Exposure Lock prior to the shot I get a good exposure every time. Why is this different from the pre-flash, or have I mis-understood the pre-flash? -- Andy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Andy wrote: Hi, I've been playing around with ways to diffuse the built-in flash on my 300D and wondered about the following. AIUI the pre-flash is supposed to calculate the flash exposure and fires again for the actual shot but with I'm not seeing this happening. With a simple diffuser in front of the flash the shots are a good stop under exposed. Yet, if I use the Flash Exposure Lock prior to the shot I get a good exposure every time. Why is this different from the pre-flash, or have I mis-understood the pre-flash? -- Andy I have the same camera. If you just frame and shoot, the exposure is centre-weighted around the AF-point - one of the seven available - and it may not be on an item you want correctly exposed. I have my AF point selected as the centre point only, and try to place it on a key tone in the subject, or at least I try to get the framing to exclude bright highlights that might depress the exposure. With FEL, the metering switches to partial, a 9% area in the centre of the VF, and when you push the FEL button the pre-flash fires and sets the subsequent exposure for whatever part of the subject the centre AF point was looking at. You then have 16 seconds to frame and shoot the subject before the exposure information is cancelled. Here are a couple of relevant websites you may find useful: http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index.html http://revolution.cx/rcx/fecset.htm Colin D. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Colin D wrote:
I have the same camera. If you just frame and shoot, the exposure is centre-weighted around the AF-point - one of the seven available - and it may not be on an item you want correctly exposed. I have my AF point selected as the centre point only, and try to place it on a key tone in the subject, or at least I try to get the framing to exclude bright highlights that might depress the exposure. I'm using the centre point also however a simple test shows the difference I'm talking about. Find something to act as a diffuser ( a piece of thin white paper, paper towel, etc) and rig it over the flash. Take 2 program mode shots of a plain, evenly lit wall - one with and the other without FEL. I'm seeing a clear difference in exposure between the two. Whatever metering mode is used I would have expected the results to be the same?? -- Andy |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Andy wrote: Colin D wrote: I have the same camera. If you just frame and shoot, the exposure is centre-weighted around the AF-point - one of the seven available - and it may not be on an item you want correctly exposed. I have my AF point selected as the centre point only, and try to place it on a key tone in the subject, or at least I try to get the framing to exclude bright highlights that might depress the exposure. I'm using the centre point also however a simple test shows the difference I'm talking about. Find something to act as a diffuser ( a piece of thin white paper, paper towel, etc) and rig it over the flash. Take 2 program mode shots of a plain, evenly lit wall - one with and the other without FEL. I'm seeing a clear difference in exposure between the two. Whatever metering mode is used I would have expected the results to be the same?? -- Andy Agreed there. I'll have a shot at that and post what happens. One thought strikes; did you do this test with the camera at your eye, or on a tripod? If on a tripod, did you blank off the viewfinder? Without your face in the way, stray light will enter the eyepiece and cause underexposure. Perhaps your hand was in the way when pushing the FEL button and the preflash fired, but out of the way when pushing the shutter, thus altering the amount of light entering the VF? IIRC the 300d came with a rubber plug to cover the eyepiece for just this purpose. Colin D. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Colin D wrote:
Agreed there. I'll have a shot at that and post what happens. One thought strikes; did you do this test with the camera at your eye, or on Test were done with the camera to my eye along the lines of: Half press, AE/AF Lock, shot Half press, AE/AF Lock, FEL, shot I didn't take the camera away from my eye between shots. I'll be interested to hear what results you get, thanks. -- Andy |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Can i see some test images. let me know i will give my email address.
thanks. Vince.... "Andy" wrote in message ... Colin D wrote: I have the same camera. If you just frame and shoot, the exposure is centre-weighted around the AF-point - one of the seven available - and it may not be on an item you want correctly exposed. I have my AF point selected as the centre point only, and try to place it on a key tone in the subject, or at least I try to get the framing to exclude bright highlights that might depress the exposure. I'm using the centre point also however a simple test shows the difference I'm talking about. Find something to act as a diffuser ( a piece of thin white paper, paper towel, etc) and rig it over the flash. Take 2 program mode shots of a plain, evenly lit wall - one with and the other without FEL. I'm seeing a clear difference in exposure between the two. Whatever metering mode is used I would have expected the results to be the same?? -- Andy |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Vince wrote:
Can i see some test images. let me know i will give my email address. thanks. Examples are he http://www.pxl8.co.uk/without_FEL.jpg http://www.pxl8.co.uk/with_FEL.jpg in this test FEL produced a darker exposure than without, but surely, given the content, both exposures should be almost identical? -- Andy |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Andy wrote: Colin D wrote: Agreed there. I'll have a shot at that and post what happens. One thought strikes; did you do this test with the camera at your eye, or on Test were done with the camera to my eye along the lines of: Half press, AE/AF Lock, shot Half press, AE/AF Lock, FEL, shot I didn't take the camera away from my eye between shots. I'll be interested to hear what results you get, thanks. -- Andy Ok, here's my results. Standing about 8 feet from an off-white wall, 420EX flash on camera; shot 1: direct flash, evaluative metering, no paper; shot 2: direct flash, FEL metering, no paper. shot 3: bounce flash from ceiling and wall behind, evaluative metering, no paper; shot 4: bounce flash, FEL metering, no paper shot 5: direct flash, evaluative metering, with paper towel; shot 6: direct flash, FEL metering, with paper towel. Results: shots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6: practically no exposure variation. Histograms were very close. Shot 5, evaluative with paper towel, was underexposed by a half-stop or more. Conclusion: there appeared to be no difference between the evaluative and the FEL shots, (which use partial metering, the central 9% of the image) - with the exception of shot 5, which was underexposed. This was the underexposed shot with evaluative metering and paper over the flash, which leads me to think that the paper towel was upsetting the light distribution, causing the evaluative metering to shorten the exposure. Colin D. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you Andy
Vince ... "Andy" wrote in message ... Vince wrote: Can i see some test images. let me know i will give my email address. thanks. Examples are he http://www.pxl8.co.uk/without_FEL.jpg http://www.pxl8.co.uk/with_FEL.jpg in this test FEL produced a darker exposure than without, but surely, given the content, both exposures should be almost identical? -- Andy |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Vince wrote: Thank you Andy Vince ... "Andy" wrote in message ... Vince wrote: Can i see some test images. let me know i will give my email address. thanks. Examples are he http://www.pxl8.co.uk/without_FEL.jpg http://www.pxl8.co.uk/with_FEL.jpg in this test FEL produced a darker exposure than without, but surely, given the content, both exposures should be almost identical? -- Andy Looking at those shots, there seems to be some sort of sheen on the wallpaper in the centre of the shot, which is returning more light than the periphery. Since 'without FEL' uses evaluative metering, i.e. from the whole image area, and FEL metering uses 9% of the area in the centre, the FEL is going to see a brighter area than the evaluative average, therefore I would expect the FEL exposure to be darker, and it is. I don't think there is a problem there. Colin D. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Buying a Canon EOS 300D Digital camera | Brian | Digital Photography | 22 | April 27th 05 09:31 AM |
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digitalphotography | Matt Ion | Digital Photography | 3 | March 24th 05 02:57 PM |
Mid or Prosumer Choices Canon A95 vs 300D ? | Magnusfarce | Digital Photography | 12 | October 9th 04 02:38 AM |
For Sale: Canon Digital Rebel 300D - $695 | EdenWinter | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | September 1st 04 10:23 AM |
Canon 300D question | louis xiv | Digital Photography | 24 | August 9th 04 04:19 PM |