Canon 20D Flash Underexposure

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

atraveler - 08 Jan 2005 15:00 GMT

Anybody troubled with flash underexposure from his/her 20D? On mine, when
flash is the primary light source, 1 or 2 stops of exposure compensation
seem to be needed to get the correct exposure. This, with both the built-in
flash and with a 580EX. Canon seems to be unaware of the cause. I'm hoping
for a firmware upgrade

atraveler

Reply to this Message

Chester Fields - 08 Jan 2005 15:14 GMT

Fear not-- you are not alone. Something to do with the new exposure system
and attempting to preserve the highlights. Numerous reports, although the
work-around right now is to bump up flash exposure compensation (FEC) by
+2/3. Search the threads in the www.dpreview.com forum for the 20D for MANY
discussions of this situation.

> Anybody troubled with flash underexposure from his/her 20D? On mine, when
> flash is the primary light source, 1 or 2 stops of exposure compensation
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> atraveler

Reply to this Message

Skip M - 08 Jan 2005 20:30 GMT

> Anybody troubled with flash underexposure from his/her 20D? On mine, when
> flash is the primary light source, 1 or 2 stops of exposure compensation
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> atraveler

Oh, Canon is aware of it. It is a consistent problem, not only with the
20D, but with the 1D mkII. I think it is a fault in the new ETT-L II
cutting the power of the flash too much in relation to distance to subject.
But that's just my theory.
I returned the 580EX we bought, because it didn't solve the exposure
problem. We get excellent exposures with the Quantum T4D flashes that we
rent, but my wife wanted something a little less bulky for general
photography. My 420EX seemed inadequate, but the 580 was no improvement.

Signature

Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Reply to this Message

John McWilliams - 08 Jan 2005 21:30 GMT

{FU set to r.p.d.}

> Oh, Canon is aware of it. It is a consistent problem, not only with the
> 20D, but with the 1D mkII. I think it is a fault in the new ETT-L II
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> rent, but my wife wanted something a little less bulky for general
> photography. My 420EX seemed inadequate, but the 580 was no improvement.

Is there any difference in using ETTL with the camera in auto mode vs.
manual in terms of the underexposure problem? I am still experimenting
with the 550EX and the 20D.

I may go to all manual, as I'd just as soon the screwups be mine vs. the
camera's.

Signature

John McWilliams

Reply to this Message