Upload & Sell: Off
| p.2 #16 · gonna rant about the 580 EXII...pics added |
Back to the subject of the 580 II pins...I'm having a hard time trying to figure our WHY the 'conehead' pins would be any better than the 'rounded' pins. It seems to me that there would be less contact surface area with the new design versus the old design...hence, the 'conehead' pins would be inferior. Am I not looking at this correctly? Can someone elaborate to the contrary? For the record, I have not had any communication issues with both my (old style) 580 II's on either my 1D, 5D, or 7D.
Part of the problem is the length of the pins. The contact problems were due mainly to the resistance of the rubber seal Canon added to the foot. The shorter pins wouldn't seat on the contacts as firmly so any flex in the gasket or hot shoe attachment to the camera would cause the loss of contact sending the flash into the film body A-TTL mode, resulting in a full power flash.
Also the contacts on the hot shoe are in shallow wells. The wider / flatter radius of the tip makes it more likely for the flexing to make the pin ride up onto the plastic around the pin breaking contact.
The pointed pins, while having a smaller contact area have, for the same amount of spring loading, more contact pressure per square MM and are less prone to riding up out of the contact wells on the camera.
Speaking of showing one's age, I find it ludicrous that in the 21st century camera makers are still using 20th century legacy mechanical connectors for flash. The only design worse than the 1930's hot shoe design is the other flash connector the PC cord / plug.
What I'd like to see is elimination of the hot shoe entirely replacing it with a integrated bracket system which positions the flash more effectively, connected via radio or Tos-Link style digital optical connector.