p.3 #1 · 40D and the MT-24EX Flash Metering Problem
Dalantech wrote:
What concerns me at this point is that people who own the 40D and the 50D claim that the 50D gives them more consistent exposures. But I'm not convinced that a 1.6 crop with 16MP will be a good camera for macro -and it looks to me like the 50D will have a lot more noise than the 40D (comparison shots between the two do not look good for the 50D).
It's inevitable as camera manufacturers keep adding more megapixels to their camera.
That leaves you with the 5D II or 1D III, both at 2.4 MP/cm² pixel density. 50D has 4.5 MP/cm² while 450D has 3.7 MP/cm² so theoretically images taken with 50D should be noisier than the ones taken with 450D. To put in perspective though, compact digital cameras have around 35 MP/cm² pixel density these days.
I'm not sure what camera manufacturers intend to do in the future as they can't possibly keep adding more MP without some sort of new technology to suppress the noise.
I got a question, why do you think 1.6 crop 16MP camera won't be good for macro?
p.3 #2 · 40D and the MT-24EX Flash Metering Problem
SteB wrote:
...What it really needs is a photographer with a well established reputation and some experience of field macro-photography to test this combination and to either publicise their results or to take it straight to Canon.
I don't know anyone who has contacts within the company
p.3 #3 · 40D and the MT-24EX Flash Metering Problem
n0b0 wrote:
I got a question, why do you think 1.6 crop 16MP camera won't be good for macro?
Due to the high noise levels (not good for shooting closeups in natural light at high ISOs) and a small circle of confusion (lower depth of field and more susceptible to the effects of diffraction).
p.3 #4 · 40D and the MT-24EX Flash Metering Problem
I had an idea some time around 4 o'clock last night while I was sleeping
If the problem is an alignment problem between the MT and the hotshoe and the problem isn't general with all canon flashes wouldnt it be possible to use something like an off camera cord or similar to acts as a go-between between camera and flash to maybe get around the problem?
Im not at all sure if this is a good idea, I would test it myself but I dont have anything like an off camera cord or similar to try it with.
p.3 #5 · 40D and the MT-24EX Flash Metering Problem
it's acually good idea for testing. if the problem was still there, you wouldn't prove anything but if the problem goes away you definitely have something.
p.3 #6 · 40D and the MT-24EX Flash Metering Problem
n0b0 wrote:
It's inevitable as camera manufacturers keep adding more megapixels to their camera.
That leaves you with the 5D II or 1D III, both at 2.4 MP/cm² pixel density. 50D has 4.5 MP/cm² while 450D has 3.7 MP/cm² so theoretically images taken with 50D should be noisier than the ones taken with 450D. To put in perspective though, compact digital cameras have around 35 MP/cm² pixel density these days.
I'm not sure what camera manufacturers intend to do in the future as they can't possibly keep adding more MP without some sort of new technology to suppress the noise.
I got a question, why do you think 1.6 crop 16MP camera won't be good for macro? ...Show more →
Add the 5D at 1.47 MP/cm, there alot of MPE users out there now with 5D MK1's.
I think though the technology in the digic chips must be advancing more to keep up the sensors, i doubt canon would want to go backwards in the noise department.
Id be interested to see if the off shoe cord helps, i do notice that when i put the flash head on my 30D and 5D the last set of pins only just make it on, so it could be an issue if the 40D contacts were not in the exact same spot.
I think if this issue is going to be taken more seriously there needs to be say a central webpage repository of all the forum links, example images etc so we can point canon and anyone else to the same spot and say hey check it out!
p.3 #7 · 40D and the MT-24EX Flash Metering Problem
Daemonoropsis wrote:
If the problem is an alignment problem between the MT and the hotshoe and the problem isn't general with all canon flashes wouldnt it be possible to use something like an off camera cord or similar to acts as a go-between between camera and flash to maybe get around the problem?
The main reason why I like the MT-24EX as that all the weight is centered and back by me -if I used an off camera cord then I might as well use my 580EX II...
p.3 #8 · 40D and the MT-24EX Flash Metering Problem
Tim Dollear wrote:
it's acually good idea for testing. if the problem was still there, you wouldn't prove anything but if the problem goes away you definitely have something.
I'll test it out in the house some time this weekend.
p.3 #9 · 40D and the MT-24EX Flash Metering Problem
The1 wrote:
I think if this issue is going to be taken more seriously there needs to be say a central webpage repository of all the forum links, example images etc so we can point canon and anyone else to the same spot and say hey check it out!
p.3 #10 · 40D and the MT-24EX Flash Metering Problem
I merely suggested it as a way of finding out where the problem lies. I dont want to use a normal speedlight any more then you do.
Thats why we spent all that $$ on the mt in the first place.
I went to my local camera store today to see if they had anything that would go right between the camera and flash and merely transmit the information but no luck. the closest they could get was canons off shoe cord which I thought was a bit expensive just for a test.
p.3 #11 · 40D and the MT-24EX Flash Metering Problem
I don't think it is a location problem. It appears that on the 40D there is no difference between average and evaluative metering, whereas there clearly is with the 430EX. I have tried cleaning the contacts and moving the flash about - it makes no difference. The flash either works as it does, only fires on full power, or doesn't operate at all - this is all that happens if you shift the position slightly. Using the off camera chord would be awkward as where do you the put the flash controller. What is more I notice that when using the 430EX with the off camera chord it is a bit sensitive to location and sometimes you have to fit and re-fit the flash a couple of times before it communicates at all.
Normally I don't disagree with John but I don't foresee any real issues with the higher resolution 50D for macro. The diffraction/noise issue is essentially the same from what I can work out if you are printing or viewing at the same size. Having said that there probably isn't much an advantage either to higher resolution sensor for some types of macro. So it would appear that the image quality issue is neutral, but with a big increase in file size. I suppose for stacking as well the bigger file sizes wouldn't be so good - I think my computer would struggle to cope. However, why should anyone need to get a new camera when the other one is supposed to work with the MT24EX. However, I would love a 5DII to try making some video with the MP-E - how can I afford it?
p.3 #12 · 40D and the MT-24EX Flash Metering Problem
I wouldn't worry too much about that, features will trickle down the camera line just like having the live view shooting on the 450D body. I predict that 60D and 500D would have this video feature.
As for stacking, you can always sample down the images in batch first, it'll take longer but it'll be sharper and as such, better for the stacking software.
Will movie capture be working its way down into models further down the range? Is there a reason that the EOS 50D, for example, doesn't have video capture?
"We're now studying carefully which models will be offered with video functionality. The 50D successor will almost certainly offer this feature."
p.3 #14 · 40D and the MT-24EX Flash Metering Problem
FWIW, I have a 580EX and 430EX and neither has mounting problems on any of the three cameras I've tried them with--the 5D, 350D, and 40D. I did have a third-party off-shoe cord that would occasionally drop out of ETTL when used with my 5D and 580EX, however. When that happened the flash would read "TTL" and would fire full power until I turned it off and disconnected the cord from the camera.
SteB, it sounds like the connection between your particular 40D and/or 430EX are out of tolerance?
p.3 #17 · 40D and the MT-24EX Flash Metering Problem
Hey all, I got my MT-24EX last week, and I've shot a bit with it now. My only Canon body at the moment is the 40D.
I've noticed that I need to keep the flash somewhere between -1FEC and -2FEC for almost all subjects. The flash metering seems considerably more erratic than my old off-shoe 580EX+Lumiquest Mini Softbox setup. I haven't been able to figure out how the flash meters yet, so I set the flash to -1FEC and tweak it up or down if my results are poor.
One thing I have paid attention to, and tried to test a few times, is the consistency of exposures. I've shot scenes up to perhaps ten exposures (bugs moving, making sure I got the plane of focus correct, etc), and with no difference in the scene, and allowing for the flash to recharge completely before firing a follow-up shot, I have seen up to perhaps 2/3rds a stop variance in the same scene between exposures.
I can imagine that I might not have shot repeated shots of subjects that exhibit this problem to its fullest extent, but I definitely see a variance, and in a few cases (subjects with shiny surfaces that get blown by overexposure) it has cost me shots.
I guess I have two questions/statements:
1) Has anyone who has noticed SEVERE inconsistencies figured out a static test that anyone can do, so we can all test our setups and duplicate the behavior, if it indeed exists for all of us?
2) Is the need to keep FEC very negative normal behavior for the MT-24EX? I'm constantly bumping against the -2FEC limit on my 40D, which forces me to use the (much less convenient) +/-3 FEC scale on my MT-24EX. This seems like poor metering performance by the MT-24EX, considering my 580EX has no such problem.
p.3 #18 · 40D and the MT-24EX Flash Metering Problem
CKrueger wrote:
I've noticed that I need to keep the flash somewhere between -1FEC and -2FEC for almost all subjects. The flash metering seems considerably more erratic than my old off-shoe 580EX+Lumiquest Mini Softbox setup. I haven't been able to figure out how the flash meters yet, so I set the flash to -1FEC and tweak it up or down if my results are poor.
Ditto -always at -1 FEC now.
CKrueger wrote:
One thing I have paid attention to, and tried to test a few times, is the consistency of exposures. I've shot scenes up to perhaps ten exposures (bugs moving, making sure I got the plane of focus correct, etc), and with no difference in the scene, and allowing for the flash to recharge completely before firing a follow-up shot, I have seen up to perhaps 2/3rds a stop variance in the same scene between exposures.
I can imagine that I might not have shot repeated shots of subjects that exhibit this problem to its fullest extent, but I definitely see a variance, and in a few cases (subjects with shiny surfaces that get blown by overexposure) it has cost me shots. ...Show more →
Ditto as well -and since it's inconsistent it's impossible to accurately compensate for...
CKrueger wrote:
1) Has anyone who has noticed SEVERE inconsistencies figured out a static test that anyone can do, so we can all test our setups and duplicate the behavior, if it indeed exists for all of us?
You can shoot a pencil at 1x with a distant background and see it.
CKrueger wrote:
2) Is the need to keep FEC very negative normal behavior for the MT-24EX? I'm constantly bumping against the -2FEC limit on my 40D, which forces me to use the (much less convenient) +/-3 FEC scale on my MT-24EX. This seems like poor metering performance by the MT-24EX, considering my 580EX has no such problem.
The flash isn't the problem -it's the 40D. The MT-24EX works just fine on all other camera bodies (the only unknown is the 50D). With the MT-24EX on the 40D the camera seems to be operating in Average E-TTL mode instead of Evaluative E-TTL. I've already sent two email to Chuck Westfall and I've had no responce...
