better lens vs better flash?

[just x joey]

well i shulda said this earlier, i already have a good 17-50mm f/2.8 lens, i was wodnering shuld i get the sigma 30mm 1.4 or canon 28 1.8 vs. the 430ex flash...

 

[sothoth]

well i shulda said this earlier, i already have a good 17-50mm f/2.8 lens, i was wodnering shuld i get the sigma 30mm 1.4 or canon 28 1.8 vs. the 430ex flash...

Just depends on what path you want to take with your photography, then. Do you need a flash? I think the 430ex is a good one except one of the previous posts made a good point that having the flash off the camera is better than using a hot shoe. As for the lenses, I think both are good (Canon/Nikon lenses are often overpriced IMO) but this is something you'll have to decide based on what kind of pictures you want to take. Like another post said, if you're doing macro work, studio work, etc, money spent on a good flash is a good investment. If you don't normally shoot in low-light or the kinds of situations that require a good flash, you might want to check into lenses instead. Personally I can live without a flash but not without good lenses for the type of shooting I do (outdoor). For indoor, I'd need a major investment to get a flash that's much better than what I already have (which isn't that great) and for me I'll just stick with a point and shoot for the kind of indoor shooting I do (requirements are minimal for taking family photos indoors).

 

[Jeremy Z]

Joey, you never answered the question of what you are wanting to shoot the most of.

However, of the lenses you have mentioned you're looking at, I would go with the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma.

If you set your camera to ISO 400 or 800 and manually set your white balance, you won't NEED flash much of the time.

IMO, fmw has kind of an extreme view regarding on-camera flash photography. As mysteryscribe pointed out, on-camera flash can be good for fill flash. It is also good when you want to take a picture and it is the only thing you've got. (a badly-lit but sharp shot beats a beautifully-lit blurry shot) If you are at a party and want to take candids, no one is going to wait for you to set up your portable studio. No one is going to come over to your studio light setup to have their Kodak moments.

However, I do agree that getting the flash further from the lens is a good thing, and the 430EX is a step in that direction. Direct flash will be better. (still not studio quality, of course) Bounce flash off of a white ceiling will be even better yet, unless it leads to shadows on the faces.

For all-around photography, I think the lens will do you more good.

 

[just x joey]

i will be shooting skateboarders outside, and hardcore bands performing live, as well as sum minor portrait work with jsut some friends messign around.

 

[sothoth]

i will be shooting skateboarders outside, and hardcore bands performing live, as well as sum minor portrait work with jsut some friends messign around.

You'll probably want both eventually, but I still think the lens should be the 1st priority. Doing the skating shots doesn't require a flash. Shooting live bands probably is better w/o one (you'll have bright stage lights anyway, and you'll be at a pretty high ISO either way), and tho I've never shot concerts I'm just guessing you're going to need a whopper of a flash to get the light to reach the stage anyway, so why bother with a flash, and indoor stuff is better with studio lights. If you don't have those, you'll want a flash and the one you pointed out seems good.

I've had SLRs for 20+ years, owned countless lenses but only two flashes. One came with the camera and I never used it. I only used my other flash a handfull of times, so for me, when I upgraded to a decent digital SLR I just decided to skip the flash until I feel I need it. So far I've bought two 3rd party lenses and don't feel like I'm limited in what I want to do in ANY WAY. If you like indoor shooting get an appropriate lens and then get a flash (in that order). While you're saving for a flash you can still shoot the skating and the concerts.

 

[nakedyak]

I guess different people have different standards. But I will mention that diffusion doesn't do anything to help on-camera flash.

I don't know if you are implying that I somehow have lower standards than you do, but you can look at my photos on my website and tell me which ones were taken with in camera flash and which ones were taken with my external flash. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to tell. And the in camera flash can be diffused, and yes, it helps.

 

[just x joey]

i was lookign at ur pcis and u have a pic of the david crowder band!!! i love them

 

[markc]

but you can look at my photos on my website and tell me which ones were taken with in camera flash and which ones were taken with my external flash. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to tell.

My guess would be:

Built-in: http://www.pbase.com/nakedyak/image/59956462
http://www.pbase.com/nakedyak/image/59956290

External: http://www.pbase.com/nakedyak/image/53964712

You just look at the location of the highlights. A built-in will be very close to the center of the eye. The further the light source is from the the lens, the further towards the edge of the eye the highlight will be. You can also look at how the shadows lie. In the first two, there is almost no modeling of their face. In the last one, you have modeling on the bridge of his nose and side of his face. To my eye, it is much more pleasing light. You'll also see hot-spots on the peaks of their facial features in that first one. It looks like it might have been emphasized in software, but I'll bet it was there to start with. That's what built-in flash gives you.

I don't think there was any insult intended, but the more you look at photography, the more these things jump out at you.

 

[xfloggingkylex]

I guess different people have different standards. But I will mention that diffusion doesn't do anything to help on-camera flash.

How doesn't it help? I dont mean that in any rude manner, but as a serious question. The difference between the on camera flash not diffused and diffused with one of those little diffusers you can buy at ritz for 15 dollars is night and day. Obvioulsy I wouldn't use the diffuser over getting a new flash, but if you are torn between lens and flash, get the lens and the diffuser to at least help the lighting problems.

 

[markc]

I touched on that a little bit. It doesn't soften the shadows unless there is something nearby for the scattered light to bounce off of. The flash is still the same size, so the main light is still coming from a small source and giving a harsh shadow. That's hard to overcome. I haven't seen a direct comparison of the same shot with and without a diffuser that convinces me otherwise, but if someone can post one, I'd happily change my tune.

And even if you do get softer light, it's still direct. I can't think of a picture I've seen taken with on-camera flash that I haven't thought could be improved with better lighting.

As for the lens, I've already said that I'd personally go for that, as I prefer natural light over artificial. I'm in the flash debate in case that's the way he wants to go, and some of us disagree on it's application.

 

[nakedyak]

My guess would be:

Built-in: http://www.pbase.com/nakedyak/image/59956462
http://www.pbase.com/nakedyak/image/59956290

External: http://www.pbase.com/nakedyak/image/53964712

You just look at the location of the highlights. A built-in will be very close to the center of the eye. The further the light source is from the the lens, the further towards the edge of the eye the highlight will be. You can also look at how the shadows lie. In the first two, there is almost no modeling of their face. In the last one, you have modeling on the bridge of his nose and side of his face. To my eye, it is much more pleasing light. You'll also see hot-spots on the peaks of their facial features in that first one. It looks like it might have been emphasized in software, but I'll bet it was there to start with. That's what built-in flash gives you.

I don't think there was any insult intended, but the more you look at photography, the more these things jump out at you.

None of your guesses were right. The first two were actually with an external flash (albeit, I was new to the flash at that time, so it was used directly as opposed to bouncing it), and the other one of my little brother is just ambient light, no flash.

Here's some on camera flash shots. Keep in mind, I don't advocate that the on-camera flash is necessarily that great, just that in a pinch, it can be quite adequate, especially for certain applications. When used correctly and for the right things, it isn't half bad. Yes, an external flash is going to be superior most of the time, but good photos can still be taken with the on camera flash (although I tend to be a natural light kind of guy).

http://www.pbase.com/nakedyak/image/71059812/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nakedyak/image/66591013.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nakedyak/image/63505359.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nakedyak/image/63156163.jpg

here's external

http://www.pbase.com/nakedyak/image/55860869.jpg (at 10mm, so it barely worked)

http://www.pbase.com/nakedyak/image/68729004.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nakedyak/image/64750316.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nakedyak/image/64750315.jpg

 

[nakedyak]

I touched on that a little bit. It doesn't soften the shadows unless there is something nearby for the scattered light to bounce off of. The flash is still the same size, so the main light is still coming from a small source and giving a harsh shadow. That's hard to overcome. I haven't seen a direct comparison of the same shot with and without a diffuser that convinces me otherwise, but if someone can post one, I'd happily change my tune.

And even if you do get softer light, it's still direct. I can't think of a picture I've seen taken with on-camera flash that I haven't thought could be improved with better lighting.

As for the lens, I've already said that I'd personally go for that, as I prefer natural light over artificial. I'm in the flash debate in case that's the way he wants to go, and some of us disagree on it's application.

My point is simply that for SOME THINGS, the in camera flash is sufficient, or at least not bad. Obviously, for things such as portraits, the built in flash is not very good. Here is a comparision shot of my girlfriend for reference. First shot is with built in flash diffused, second is with an external flash bounced off the ceiling.

Sorry for the poor quality, these are drastically compressed jpgs that i salvaged

built in canon 20d flash

external sigma flash bounced off ceiling

you can see that the external flash helps a lot with shadows, etc as the main light source is coming from the ceiling, not right above the lens. With better exposure, I still don't think the built in flash looks too bad, especially if you don't look at the shadow it casts.

 

[markc]

None of your guesses were right. The first two were actually with an external flash (albeit, I was new to the flash at that time, so it was used directly as opposed to bouncing it), and the other one of my little brother is just ambient light, no flash.

Fair enough, but it emphasizes even more how important getting the flash away from the lens is. If those two shots were with external, the extension of the flash isn't very long and it might as well be built-in.

The second one has the light source further away, so that's why I though it *might* be external. It can be hard sometimes to know exactly what is causing the light.

Here's some on camera flash shots.

Those are all of insects. I guess that falls into the normal realm of what people take pictures of, but people are more common. It's hard for me to judge what they are taken with. There are no eyes. If you are doing a comparison, I think you need to compare like with like.

Keep in mind, I don't advocate that the on-camera flash is necessarily that great, just that in a pinch, it can be quite adequate, especially for certain applications.

I looks like it worked for insects. In my mind, people are the real test, as that's one of the most common subjects out there. Since that's what I shoot almost exclusively, I tend to think in those terms. It can be handy for other things, but for people, I think it's better to not shoot with flash at all than to use built-in or even external if it's close to the lens and not bounced. It can be handy for a little fill light, but not as a main source. That's fine if you like the results. I guess we just differ in that opinion.

here's external

Most of those are very direct light, which doesn't work for me. Very similar to built-in. In the second one, it looks like you used it as fill, so it's more pleasing to me than the others.

 

[markc]

With better exposure, I still don't think the built in flash looks too bad, especially if you don't look at the shadow it casts.

Yeah, we definitely differ there. I can't help but notice things like that. It just jumps out at me, like the shiny highlights on the raised part of the face and lack of modeling shadows.
And I do agree that bounce is better than direct. That's mainly what I've been harping about. The comparison I was talking about is direct light with and without a diffuser, not bounced. If the exposure on the first one was better, I think it would look a lot like the same shot taken with the diffuser off. The diffuser is mainly dimming the light so that it's more difficult to get good exposure. I think the second one is MUCH more pleasing, which is why I'm recommending getting an external flash over using the built-in if the OP wants to do flash pictures.

 

[shingfan]

markc: i have to disagree with you about diffuser mainly dimming the light....diffuser diffuses the light...giving it a wider spread.....i've tried diffuser on and off my external flash in many different indoor situation.....diffuse always does a better job spreading the light wider providing a more natural exposure instead of a hot flash on the subject.....even when you use bounce flash.....it still make a huge difference with or without the diffuser on

i have a SB600 and i use the Omni diffuser

optically speaking...the diffuser will reduce the intensity of the light going straight into the subject....however.....it doesnt DIM the subject....instead...becaue of the better spread of light.....it makes the subject looking brighter overall instead of a hot spot.....is similar physic as bouncing in some sense.....boucing is also "DIMMING".....that's why there is optic fibre wire for data transmission to reduce loss during boucing/transmitting