420EX compared to 580EX, differences?

robscomputer

Hi,

Last week I was taking photographs of my company's party for the IT staff. We had a data center move and celebrated with small social event.

Now, I have used my 420EX for my friend's wedding but this time I was trying to take more pictures in rapid succession, say 3~5 pictures within 10 seconds. The problem I encountered was of two things, first my flash didn't appear to have enough power, and second the recycle time was very slow (even with fresh batteries).

I have read that the 580EX has much faster recycle time but not really sure how to compare the two flashes.

Also would I be able to use my 10D without any problems with the 580EX? I plan to use the off camera shoe cable with a small bracket as well.

Thanks,
Rob

Mongrel

Hi Rob,

robscomputer wrote:

Hi,

Now, I have used my 420EX for my friend's wedding but this time I was trying to take more pictures in rapid succession, say 3~5 pictures within 10 seconds. The problem I encountered was of two things, first my flash didn't appear to have enough power, and second the recycle time was very slow (even with fresh batteries).

I have read that the 580EX has much faster recycle time but not really sure how to compare the two flashes.

I can't give you hard numbers on this, but in my experience using both flashes, the answer is-Yes the 580EX is very fast recycling, has more power, more on-board control, and works very well as a master for the 420EX. This is the setup that I'm using now, and I'm very satisfied with it-it's a great combo. The 580EX is a very good unit, as is the 420EX. Depending on the situation I will use one or the other or both.

robscomputer wrote:

Also would I be able to use my 10D without any problems with the 580EX? I plan to use the off camera shoe cable with a small bracket as well.

Thanks,
Rob

No, no problems at all with the 10D. You will loose the ETTL-2 refinements, but the 580EX will work fine with the 10D in ETTL.

I don't have a lot of experience using flash units, maybe someone else can expand on what I've said above.

mercphoto

The 580 is quite a bit faster than a 420. I measured the re-cycle times of my 580EX once, and I'm going on memory here:

With Duracell AA's about 6 seconds to full recharge.
With Duracell Ultra AA's about 4 seconds to full recharge.
With NiMH 2200 mAH about 3 seconds to full recharge.
With a Canon battery pack about half again.

I could be off with my numbers, but the ratios should be about right. NiMH 2200/2500 is about twice as fast as alkalines. And a battery pack is about twice as fast again.

Note real world use may vary, as any given picture might not need a full recharge of flash to fire. Not all shots are at full power.

robscomputer

Thanks for the detailed info.

I really am starting to use the flash for more photography and find the 420EX in some cases slowing me down while I wait for the cycles. I tend to use a diffuser with the 420 but with the 580 I'm guessing I can fine tune the flash to reduce the amount of power as needed. With the 420 using direct lighting it's very harsh, and often will blow out images.

mercphoto: With the Canon battery pack about how many flashes do you typically get from full charge?

Thanks again,
Rob

DoctorIt

In response to your last question: I use NiMh batteries in my 580EX and I am amazed at the battery life! I shot a wedding almost a month ago now with a fresh charge on the batteries. Took well over 100 shots, ALL with the flash... AND the same batteries are still in the flash, used it last week and just the other day.

So think twice before you blow big bucks on the Canon battery pack.

Red Baron

I have both of these flash units and I agree with Mongrel's assessment. I also agree with others that NIMH rechargeables make a big difference in comparison to alkalines. What camera settings were you using? A higher ISO, wider aperture or slower shutter speed (or any combination of the three) will allow more ambient light into the equation thereby demanding less light from the flash. This should also help with recycle times.

robscomputer

Yeah, I wasn't too impressed with the large size of the Canon flash battery pack but more interested in the overall life. I think with the new 2200 rechargables these would be a better buy and save space.

For the party I took the pictures using the camera mostly on A mode, keeping the lens almost wide open the whole time at f/4. I wanted to try and blow out the background but didn't work as planned. The ISO was set to 100 but I figured the subjects are slower moving, next time I'll start moving towards using 200 or 400.

Now I did have the diffuser on the whole time which greatly reduces the power of the flash but the room had such a high celing I couldn't bounce off anything.

Rob

Red Baron

In this position I would have set the camera to M, aperture of f4, a shutter speed of 1/60 - 1/90 and ISO at 400 or even 800. I wouldn't have worried too much about noise at the higher ISO since "event" pictures are likely to be printed at 4x6 and rarely beyond. Also, if recycling time was of primary importance I may have dropped the diffuser in an effort to reduce the recharging time.

robscomputer

Very good suggestions, I'll use your example for my next event. I guess I was a bit worried about noise with the 10D but like you said, event pictures rarely get blown up.

BTW I picked up a set of 2400MHa rechargable AA's last night from Costco. For $16 they have a set of Panasonics, 4 AA, 2 AAA, and the quick charger. Not a bad deal and I'll see how much faster my flash recharges.

Rob

MainFragger

Rechargeables..

robscomputer wrote:

Very good suggestions, I'll use your example for my next event. I guess I was a bit worried about noise with the 10D but like you said, event pictures rarely get blown up.

BTW I picked up a set of 2400MHa rechargable AA's last night from Costco. For $16 they have a set of Panasonics, 4 AA, 2 AAA, and the quick charger. Not a bad deal and I'll see how much faster my flash recharges.

Rob

I am using a Quantaray flash, but just to add a slightly different angle on the speed factor of NiMh batteries, the IC3's (a subclass of NiMH batteries) charge in 15 mins, and I get anywhere between 100 and 175 shots with them. And I have had times where I took a 100 shots with them, didn't use it for more than a month, and then still put another 50 or so shots on them. They are a bit more expensive than normal NiMH, and just a hair thicker/heavier, but I swear by them.

I tried the Panasonic Oxyrides at the suggesting of one of the engineers from Panasonic (he actually suggested it for longer battery life on cameras that use AA's) that I talk to from time to time, and I really wasn't that impressed with them for flash usage.

MainFragger

binghott

i have the 420ex, and it's probably the only photography purchase that i regret. don't get me wrong, it's certainly a good device, but i really think i could use the additional controls of the 580ex. i must say, once again, that the energizer lithium batteries that i use in my flash are absolutely terrific and perform better than my rechargables and they last for a full event. any time i shoot a concert i take around 600-700 pictures, most with flash and if i start with a fresh set of lithiums it will make it through the whole event. i don't mind that it costs me $8 for each event i do, considering i have no other recurring costs . i hope this helps.

robscomputer

Thanks for all of the comments.

I have been using the rechargables and they really help out with the cycling times. Instead of waiting about 5 seconds for the flash to recharge, they now take less than a second for a recharge. It's actually so fast I don't even look at the lights and just wait like I did before.

Since I don't take too many indoor shots I think the 420EX with the new 2300's will be good for now. Right now I want to pick up another set from Costco, so I have a second backup set for more pictures.

Rob