430ex or 580ex? pity me

asamuel

I went to buy a 580ex after reading photonotes debreif.

I then recoiled at seeing the price ( I had researched everything but that).

Now I am considering the 430ex.

I have read on threads in Dgrin that it can do everything that a 580ex can exept:

its distance 43somrthing instead of 58 something (I guess).

and the 430 is not a master...... can somebody explain breifly what a master is and importantly when you would need it.

I know you choose a flash when you know what you want it for. but thats still difficult. Whilst I use a 350D I wish I had bought something better, bigger eyepiece, handier this handier that, it would have been a wise investment not just a "I WANT THE BIGGEST AND BEST!" choice. I dont want to make the same mistake twice.

Having said that I m just about to find myself out of a job and moneys tight.

However, I am using the time to approach newsagencies to get expereience as a photojournalist (probably for free), so I need something thats gonna cut the mustard.

Real world I am an amteaur photographer .

Dream world I am a photojournalist, war photographer, critical eye, artist scupture of outdoor still lifes that would require a flash on a light stand (I'm guessing), surrealist. Yeah that sounds right:D

I do not see myself doing Studio portraits, landscapes or sports photography. (although I want to do portraits, landscapes feature in my pictures and people can move really fast)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>that was clear as mud, sorry but maybe maybe it is some help.

LASTLY how much of a pain is the 430ex user interface compared to the 580ex (it looks more fiddly).

thanks to you.

ziggy53

If money was no object, I would recommend the 580EX, hands down.

Since money "is" an object, (you mention the "... just about to find myself out of a job and moneys tight."), you might consider the Sigma EF-500 DG Super. It has most of the power, and most of the features, of the 580EX, at about half the price.

Is the 580EX a better flash? Absolutely!

Are 2 - Sigma 500 Supers better than 1 - Canon 580EX? I think I can argue that they are more valuable, depending on their use.

Choices, you have to love it.

ziggy53

DanielB

personally i love the 430, and its just enough flash for my liking.*don't use it alot* but when i do use it it works fantasticly and is great at metering light

RedSox

I had both Sigma and 430EX and at the end returned Sigma and kept the 430EX. I did not feel much of power output difference between these two, maybe because I never shoot wedding in a big church... But Sigma build is flimsy and menu is not as intuitive and easy to navigate as Canon. Consider 430EX is a detuned 580EX. Thought about the 580EX, but figured that I hardly need a 580EX serve as a master in a wireless flash setup, might as well pay half the money get the 430EX and put the saving towards better glasses.

BTW, Do you guys take battery out from the flash when not use?
Eric

j-bo

Welp... I'm in the same boat here.

I shoot motocross and sometimes they race at night which I only have a digirebxt with on camera flash.

I am deciding between 430ex, 550ex, 580ex as i'm a cheap..er .. frugal person.

I am hoping that the 580ex's af assist will help in autofocusing at night. But I don't really know what tha means or how to use it. HAHA. I'm very new (5ths) to all this. But. I've been selling a lot (to me anyways) of photos and being able to shoot these night races would put me heads and tails over my competitiors.

I too won't be doing a lot of night shots, but I also have my sons karate class to do, with horrible lighting and I can't get good focus and I have to shoot at iso 800 or 1600.

Yes, I know a 2.8L would certainly be a better lens choice, but out of my price range for now. Further down the road though. I have a 70-200 4.0L and/or the kit lens.

SO, will any of these flashes get me a good AF? Does the 580EX focus assist work and if so how? With the limited amount of need for a flash, will a 430EX suffice and get the shots I need?




Here are the problems I am hoping the flash will help me fix. AF mainly. But shooting lower ISO too.

cmason

I have the 430EX and really like it. It has AF assist as well, and it seems to work very very well. Essentially it has some red/IR lines it projects to aid focusing. Not sure how far it is effective, but it is quite effective indoors around the house.

One other difference of note is that the 580 is HUGE, much larger than the 430, so if you really need its power (only a bit more) or its master capabilities, then it is worth it. Otherwise, the 430 is a great flash, more than capable of the uses you both mention. I am very very happy with the eTTL II capabilities, and the Canon flash with my XT provides fabulous resullts and is very easy to control.

Master/slave refers to the ability of one flash to control another. The Canon flashes can be linked via IR signals, and you can have multiple flashes fire together. In addition, this IR also links them with eTTLII, meaning that the camera and flashes are automatically adjusting output based on the metering in the camera. In the case of the 430 and 580, the 430 can only be controlled by another flash, it can not control others. In order for a 430 to be used as a slave (say for off camera use or studio use with an umbrella), you need either a 580 or a ST-E2, Canon's wireless controller.
As a master the 580EX gives you control of the output of other flashes, right on the flash LCD. You can also turn off the flash on the 580, having it act as a wireless controller only (good if you dont want flash from the direction of the camera itself).

My thought on all this is that first and foremost, I wanted a good flash that works very well with my camera. Second, someday, it would be nice to have multiple flashes for studio type activities. Now, for studio work, I am either going to get monolights, in which case the Canon wireless is useless, or I may go with multiple Canon flashes, as described in websites like Strobist. The Canon flashes offer portability that monolights really can't match, so it is an interesting idea. Either way, I need a basic flash.

So, based on this rationale, I bought the 430EX. This way, later I can buy a 580 as my controller, and use the 430 wirelessly on an umbrella. And if I go with monolights instead, I won't need the 580 anyway.

Seefutlung

I have the 430 and I am satisified with the results. Most of the time when I use the flash the subjects are less than 20 feet away and the 430 is fine. I tend to appreciate and work with available light (don't do wedding or studio), so the 430 is only used under extreme conditions or when ISO 1600 is not an option. The main difference between the 430 and 580 is power and the 430 has more than enough power for news work.

As a former photo journalist, and in a perfect, I would opt for the 580 as the 'shot' is all that is important and one gets what equipment is necessary to obtain the 'shot'. but if money is tight, than a 430 can handle all of your needs for news photography.

Interesting you mentioned not doing sports photography. Working for a major newspaper, much of my assignments were sports. BTW- one should never use a camera mounted flash for competitive sports as the flash may interfere with the vision of a participant and in turn effect that participant's performance.

Gary

BenA2

I chose the 430
I struggled over this same dilema for weeks and ultimately ended up chosing the 430EX for the cost savings and more compact size. I have not regretted it for a second.

I needed (wanted?) a flash for indoor, low-light family photos and as a fill flash for outdoor portraits. The 430 has performed admirably on my XT and I have not found myself wanting for more power at all. I have no need for a multiple flash setup.

User Interface: I've shot with both the 550 and the 430. I compare the interfaces to the controls on the 20D and XT, respectively. Are the 550/20D controls easier to use? Absolutely. Are the 430/XT controls adequate for my use? Definitely.

If you have similar shooting needs, and a limited budget, I highly recommend the 430. My only concern in your situation is your desire to do photojournalism work. In those cases, I could see a potential need for the added power of the 580.

I hope that's helpful.

mr peas

You know what, I use a 420EZ Speedlight on manual on my camera. It costs less than $100 on Ebay (maybe even more), but it has a lot of manual-zoom, flash-output, slow-sync (i still dont know how to use that hah) settings you can apply yourself. Then, when you feel ready and have saved up, get the 580EX.

Yeah its true, you shouldn't always buy the 'biggest and best', but sometimes, buying something less would give you some type of buyer's remorse. If the 430EX has the same capabilities as the 420EZ (or 430EZ), you should get it. I dont know much about the newer flashes now, I still havent upgraded hah. But you should def look into buying an old flash...that is until you can afford to go with the 'biggest and best'.

Thats my opinion ivar

j-bo

Seefutlung wrote:

BTW- one should never use a camera mounted flash for competitive sports as the flash may interfere with the vision of a participant and in turn effect that participant's performance.

Can you elaborate on what you mean here? I only have the on camera flash and I've asked the riders many times if the flash bothers them, albeit I'm sure the flash is too weak for them to notice, but they don't really notice it.

But... if I get a 430EX. Do I have to use a bracket or do I swivel just off to the side or??.........sorry, newbie questions. But thankful for the replies. A buddy said just get the 580 and be done with it, since it's only $100 difference or so. But.. I don't like big and bulky either.

Cameron

The size isn't as big of a difference as people have stated. I own both the 580ex and the 420ex (model prior to 430ex) and don't feel the size difference matters that much. Both use 4 batteries and the weight isn't that much different either. Here's a comparison:

430ex: 2.8 x 4.8 x 4" (72 x 122 x 101mm) WxHxD, 11.6 oz (330 g)
580ex: 3 x 5.3 x 4.5" (75 x 134 x 114mm) WxHxD, 13.2 oz (375 g)

So it's 1/2 inch longer and wider.

That said, the 430ex is a fabulous flash and will likely be all you need - if money is tight I'd get that one and spend time learning to use the flash. I used the 420ex for 3 years and it has almost always been enough - I upgraded to the 580ex for a bit more power and faster recycle time as well as the ability to use the 420ex as a slave.

You'll love either one.

j-bo

Anyone?? :ivar

j-bo wrote:

Can you elaborate on what you mean here? I only have the on camera flash and I've asked the riders many times if the flash bothers them, albeit I'm sure the flash is too weak for them to notice, but they don't really notice it.

But... if I get a 430EX. Do I have to use a bracket or do I swivel just off to the side or??.........sorry, newbie questions. But thankful for the replies. A buddy said just get the 580 and be done with it, since it's only $100 difference or so. But.. I don't like big and bulky either.

Seefutlung

j-bo wrote:

Can you elaborate on what you mean here? I only have the on camera flash and I've asked the riders many times if the flash bothers them, albeit I'm sure the flash is too weak for them to notice, but they don't really notice it.

But... if I get a 430EX. Do I have to use a bracket or do I swivel just off to the side or??.........sorry, newbie questions. But thankful for the replies. A buddy said just get the 580 and be done with it, since it's only $100 difference or so. But.. I don't like big and bulky either.

Sure ... most young athletics are a bit intimidated by press/a guy/gal with a big camera and always say that they are not bothered by the flash. And, quite frankly, usually they are not, but the odds of the 'unusual' are not that remote to rule out flash as a possible interferance to a participant's performance. Which is why photogs from major news organizations don't use on-board flash at sporting events. Photo Journalists are to record history and make history. All it takes is one instance, a receiver blinded for a fraction of a second ... a motocrosser glancing to a bright light source and what happens afterwards has just crossed the line between reporter and participant. A photog with a flash has a very good potential to effect the performance of a particpant. The, better/highly trained/more skilled/however you wish to distinguish them ... news photographers will not cross that line.

Many photogs come back with ... yeah but they get fast and long lenses, lenses costing thousands of dollars for free. Yes, they do, but that's not the point. They don't cross the line because of principle not because of equipment.

(Have you tried ISO 3200?)

Gary

j-bo

Okay.. I'm getting the gist of it now. May take awhile, but eventually it will click some brain cells.

When you say "on-board flash" I thought you meant having a flash mounted on the camera itself. Is that right? or do you mean any flash at all?

So if it's the latter, then any flash isn't worth it to me, as I mostly shoot motocross. I would be better off saving and getting a 2.8 lens?

Again sorry for the newb questions , but thanks for giving me the right info so I can learn something!

Seefutlung wrote:

Sure ... most young athletics are a bit intimidated by press/a guy/gal with a big camera and always say that they are not bothered by the flash. And, quite frankly, usually they are not, but the odds of the 'unusual' are not that remote to rule out flash as a possible interferance to a participant's performance. Which is why photogs from major news organizations don't use on-board flash at sporting events. Photo Journalists are to record history and make history. All it takes is one instance, a receiver blinded for a fraction of a second ... a motocrosser glancing to a bright light source and what happens afterwards has just crossed the line between reporter and participant. A photog with a flash has a very good potential to effect the performance of a particpant. The, better/highly trained/more skilled/however you wish to distinguish them ... news photographers will not cross that line.

Many photogs come back with ... yeah but they get fast and long lenses, lenses costing thousands of dollars for free. Yes, they do, but that's not the point. They don't cross the line because of principle not because of equipment.

(Have you tried ISO 3200?)

Gary

Seefutlung

j-bo wrote:

Okay.. I'm getting the gist of it now. May take awhile, but eventually it will click some brain cells.

When you say "on-board flash" I thought you meant having a flash mounted on the camera itself. Is that right? or do you mean any flash at all?

So if it's the latter, then any flash isn't worth it to me, as I mostly shoot motocross. I would be better off saving and getting a 2.8 lens?

Again sorry for the newb questions , but thanks for giving me the right info so I can learn something!

Hey j-bo,

By "on-board" I mean any flash that is mounted on the camera and used as a light source to illuminate the subject(s). Sorry to seem over detailed here ... but there are some on this and other forums that all they do is look for the exception and attack you because you forgot to dot an i in a 10,000 word essay.

Flash is used at most indoor, professional venues (ie, Staples Center in LA), but those flashes are mounted in the ceiling/superstructure and are set off remotely. Those are a completely different animal than an "on-board" flash).

a 2.8 is the way to go ... if you use Canon, the 2.8 actually allows the camera to focus quicker and faster.

Gary

j-bo

Okay.. Thanks a bunch. I just get confused when one mentions Onboard and think its mounted on the camera. Then someone mentions flash that is mounted on a bracket as being off camera.

Anyways.... I think I'll sell my 70-200mm 4l and use the funds and upgrade to a 70-200mm 2.8.

Man... if that thing weighs a bunch. I hope I can hand hold that thing. It seems to be very heavy on a rebelxt too.

Seefutlung

j-bo wrote:

Okay.. Thanks a bunch. I just get confused when one mentions Onboard and think its mounted on the camera. Then someone mentions flash that is mounted on a bracket as being off camera.

Anyways.... I think I'll sell my 70-200mm 4l and use the funds and upgrade to a 70-200mm 2.8.

Man... if that thing weighs a bunch. I hope I can hand hold that thing. It seems to be very heavy on a rebelxt too.

Get a monpod if it seems heavy. Use a neckstrap (not a handstrap). Eat spinach (frozen not fresh from California). Get a battery grip for the XT, it will get heavier, but the balance of the extra weight makes it better/easier to handhold. Plus the isolation provided by the larger aperature you will love. Shoot all your sports action at 2.8. I didn't get the IS because most of what I shoot is action. The IS will stop camera shake but will not stop action. So if you don't need the IS you will save $$$ and a few ounces.

Gary

-G-

Jeffro

j-bo wrote:

Anyways.... I think I'll sell my 70-200mm 4l and use the funds and upgrade to a 70-200mm 2.8.

Man... if that thing weighs a bunch. I hope I can hand hold that thing. It seems to be very heavy on a rebelxt too.

If you are looking to shoot night motocross, the lights better be really really good! I've been to two tracks at night and the lighting sucked. I have 2.8 and it's still pretty hard to get the speed you need. If you have full track access, a prime lens with 1.8 or 2.0 may be the thing you need to supplement your 70-200 f4.

Another thing to think about if and when using flash at a MX race at night, is dust. The flash will reflect the dust in the air, that at times you can't even see. This tends to wash out the pics. Head on shots of riders could be dangerous as well.

I found my best night MX shots were those I got from right next to the track.....I could feel the breeze as they flew by..:D

j-bo

I can get as close as I want at any of the tracks.

So using your 2.8 at ISO 1600 didn't fair very well? The track that I'd mainly be shooting at is lit pretty well, just not enough for f4.

Speaking of AF, I would think that the AF assist beam on the speedlites would work okay and I could use that being that it's infrared right?

Didn't think of a prime with 1.8 or 2.0 either.

I won't be shooting A LOT of night motocross, but when I can or would, I'd be way ahead of the competition.

Do you use flash Jeffro?

Thanks for all the replies. It's helping me with decisions to make. Heck, I can see me now. "HONEY???... I'm getting a new lens and a super duper flash now. Thats what they told me I had to have to be good."

Jeffro wrote:

If you are looking to shoot night motocross, the lights better be really really good! I've been to two tracks at night and the lighting sucked. I have 2.8 and it's still pretty hard to get the speed you need. If you have full track access, a prime lens with 1.8 or 2.0 may be the thing you need to supplement your 70-200 f4.

Another thing to think about if and when using flash at a MX race at night, is dust. The flash will reflect the dust in the air, that at times you can't even see. This tends to wash out the pics. Head on shots of riders could be dangerous as well.

I found my best night MX shots were those I got from right next to the track.....I could feel the breeze as they flew by..:D

Jeffro

I've only tried a couple of night MX shoots, and I was happier with my non flash shots, than the flash shots, for the most part. The reason was due to the dust in the air, it really became a problem.

I found that my shots taken at ISO 800 @ F2.8 and 1/250th were ok, but I don't like the grain of the higher ISO's, as it gets to be a little much with bigger prints. That could just be a personal choice thing. Most buyers seem to think ever picture should be crystal clear, which means they probably don't know a whole lot about photography.

I have actually thought that a 85 or 50mm 1.8 would have worked pretty good, track side, under the "good lighting".

Focus with the 70-200L f2.8 was only a problem if the riders were in the darker sections, then some searching took place. I couldn't even tell you if the focus assist ever activated.

Now if you shoot in a stadium, like at a pro venue, the lighting will not be as big of an issue...way better lights!

j-bo

Since your site is saved as a favorite... I've finally found the night shots. I havent looked at all of them, but the exif shows most at F4.0?? I see a lot the flash fired also.

Did you shoot Tv mode set at 1/250 or something?

I'm getting off topic a little, but I also noticed you chose "true" color instead of auto for your default. You find this is better than auto? I hadn't ordered one of each yet.

Jeffro

j-bo wrote:

Since your site is saved as a favorite... I've finally found the night shots. I havent looked at all of them, but the exif shows most at F4.0?? I see a lot the flash fired also.

Did you shoot Tv mode set at 1/250 or something?

I'm getting off topic a little, but I also noticed you chose "true" color instead of auto for your default. You find this is better than auto? I hadn't ordered one of each yet.

I shot with my flash until my batteries died. I broke out the 17-40L F4 when I got up close and personal. That's why I am considering a shorter prime in the 1.8 area. I did't really care for the 70-200 length at night, despite the 2.8. The length would work against me, while the speed was trying to help. but then if you get too far away the flash fall off kills the shot. So I tried shooting several different ways. Night MX is a tough one, trying to get stopped action, good clarity, and not blind the rider...:D

I think I shot in TV, AV and even M. I even tried the old standby, M at F8 and 1/250. I had the Canon battery pack attached, but it may be better to have a much more powerful batery pack. If I go higher than ISO 800 it starts to be a little to grainy for publishing purposes.

You will see the dust in the pics of guys jumping and stuff, taken from a bit of a distance. I wasn't totally disgusted with my resluts, but I really do prefer the day time.

I plan on trying some more night races, when I get a chance, because like all types of shooting it takes practice, practice, practice......

ps...I use the TRUE setting, because I had talked to someone else that got bad results when they used AUTO, as the colors turned out different after they were "corrected".

So far I've had no complaints about the TRUE setting with over a thousand prints sold this year.