Nikon 11-16 Wide angle Lens

[pixmedic]

What I gain is the flexibility to change the aim point of the flash unit easily and instantly. Try it. You may like it.

try flashes with swivel heads. you may like it.
in an inclosed area bouncing off the ceiling, holding the flash out a bit wont make any significant difference.

im not really sure why you are trying to push some absolute rule with flashes. especially wish such a flimsy example.
im not sure how much experience you have with bouncing flashes off ceilings, but with a rogue flashbender and a ceiling, a flash mounted directly to the camera
is every bit as effective as any direction you could hold it with your hand. for direct flash, meaning not bounced, things are different. for direct flash I either use a flash bracket and a small softbox diffuser, or off camera completely on a stand. (or someone holding the flash on my monopod)

but again, for bouncing off the ceiling, there is no advantage to holding the flash. all you are doing is wasting a hand that could be better used doing other things. like, any other things.

ill give you an example, since this seems to be a complicated concept.
this shot was taken at the Tampa aquarium. above the bride and groom are blue and purple spotlights.
this was shot with a SB700 mounted directly on the camera, pointed up with a rogue flashbender in front directing the light up and backwards.

wedding by pixmedic, on Flickr


this shot was taken with the same flash and rogue flashbender, but with my wife holding the flash on a monopod camera right.
the same blue and purple spotlights apply.
DSC_0169 by pixmedic, on Flickr


as you can see, the same results were achieved with both methods. the biggest difference being that instead of having to deal with someone holding a flash, and where to put it when im not using it, i could simply put the flash ON THE CAMERA and bounce it of the ceiling and literally get the same result. so much easier for me.

if you want to hold your flash in your hand, theres nothing wrong with it if that is your preference....but it seems a tad irresponsible to tell people they should never put the flash directly on the camera when it is obviously a perfectly feasible technique.

 

[pixmedic]

A friend of mine says:

"There is only one sensible and permanent solution for Nikon Pop Up Flashes: open them, but some drops of epoxy glue into them, close them."

well, we werent talking about the popup flash...
but yea...popup flash isnt the most useful tool on the camera.

however....they do make diffusers for the popup flash, and properly utilized i have seen people get some pretty good results with them.
i wouldn't completely discount any source of light when its needed.

 

[Frank F.]

@pixmedic I replied to the opening post of this thread

 

[pixmedic]

@pixmedic I replied to the opening post of this thread

oops. my bad.

carry on. nothing to see here.

 

[480sparky]

I normally hold the flash unit in my left hand when bouncing. There is no need to attach it to the camera. Nothing photographically positive is gained by on camera flash.

This assumes one has the technology that makes off-camera synch possible. Not all cameras have that ability, nor can everyone afford it.

 

[Destin]

I normally hold the flash unit in my left hand when bouncing. There is no need to attach it to the camera. Nothing photographically positive is gained by on camera flash.

This assumes one has the technology that makes off-camera synch possible. Not all cameras have that ability, nor can everyone afford it.

I would disagree strongly. If you have a DSLR or camera with a hot shoe, wireless flash is well within your budget. Don't care who you are.

Trigger $37: YONGNUO YN560-TX LCD Flash Trigger Remote Controller for Canon and YN560-III With Wake-up function for Canon cameras Amazon.com : YONGNUO YN560-TX LCD Flash Trigger Remote Controller for Canon and YN560-III With Wake-up function for Canon cameras : Camera & Photo

Flash $65: YONGNUO YN560 IV Wireless Flash Speedlite Master + Slave Flash + Built-in Trigger System for Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus Fujifilm Panasonic Digital Cameras Amazon.com : YONGNUO YN560 IV Wireless Flash Speedlite Master + Slave Flash + Built-in Trigger System for Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus Fujifilm Panasonic Digital Cameras : Camera & Photo

So for $102 you not only have just any wireless flash setup, but an RF one at that.

And if that's too expensive you could buy an optically slaved flash for like $40, and trigger it with your built in flash.

Money is no longer a barrier to wireless flash.

 

[pixmedic]

I normally hold the flash unit in my left hand when bouncing. There is no need to attach it to the camera. Nothing photographically positive is gained by on camera flash.

This assumes one has the technology that makes off-camera synch possible. Not all cameras have that ability, nor can everyone afford it.

I would disagree strongly. If you have a DSLR or camera with a hot shoe, wireless flash is well within your budget. Don't care who you are.

Trigger $37: YONGNUO YN560-TX LCD Flash Trigger Remote Controller for Canon and YN560-III With Wake-up function for Canon cameras Amazon.com : YONGNUO YN560-TX LCD Flash Trigger Remote Controller for Canon and YN560-III With Wake-up function for Canon cameras : Camera & Photo

Flash $65: YONGNUO YN560 IV Wireless Flash Speedlite Master + Slave Flash + Built-in Trigger System for Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus Fujifilm Panasonic Digital Cameras Amazon.com : YONGNUO YN560 IV Wireless Flash Speedlite Master + Slave Flash + Built-in Trigger System for Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus Fujifilm Panasonic Digital Cameras : Camera & Photo

So for $102 you not only have just any wireless flash setup, but an RF one at that.

And if that's too expensive you could buy an optically slaved flash for like $40, and trigger it with your built in flash.

Money is no longer a barrier to wireless flash.

That does nothing to detract from the fact that you don't NEED the flash to be off camera for it to be effective.

sent by synchronized cardioversion

 

[480sparky]

I normally hold the flash unit in my left hand when bouncing. There is no need to attach it to the camera. Nothing photographically positive is gained by on camera flash.

This assumes one has the technology that makes off-camera synch possible. Not all cameras have that ability, nor can everyone afford it.

I would disagree strongly. If you have a DSLR or camera with a hot shoe, wireless flash is well within your budget. Don't care who you are.

Trigger $37: YONGNUO YN560-TX LCD Flash Trigger Remote Controller for Canon and YN560-III With Wake-up function for Canon cameras Amazon.com : YONGNUO YN560-TX LCD Flash Trigger Remote Controller for Canon and YN560-III With Wake-up function for Canon cameras : Camera & Photo

Flash $65: YONGNUO YN560 IV Wireless Flash Speedlite Master + Slave Flash + Built-in Trigger System for Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus Fujifilm Panasonic Digital Cameras Amazon.com : YONGNUO YN560 IV Wireless Flash Speedlite Master + Slave Flash + Built-in Trigger System for Canon Nikon Pentax Olympus Fujifilm Panasonic Digital Cameras : Camera & Photo

So for $102 you not only have just any wireless flash setup, but an RF one at that.

And if that's too expensive you could buy an optically slaved flash for like $40, and trigger it with your built in flash.

Money is no longer a barrier to wireless flash.

If money isn't an issue, then you're more than capable of buying such systems for anyone who wants one.

 

[Derrel]

..SNIP>you could buy an optically slaved flash for like $40, and trigger it with your built in flash.

Ooopsie....you accidentally listed one of the main uses for a pop-up flash: optically triggering other flash units!!!

Ajnd for the poster putting forth the idea he and a friend share, the idea that the pop-up flash is of so little utility that it ought to be cemented permanently shut? That is is just a dumb idea. Please refer to the Strobist website's articles dealing with how to use ON-AXIS fill-flash as a second flash source, used with a second flash, and sunlight. The idea that a pop-up flash is "useless" is flat-out inoccorrect and shows narrow-minded thinking. On-axis is where fill lighting has traditionally been placed, for literally, decades. And since in sunlight situatioins, you want about Minus 2.5 to Minus 3.0 EV from the flash....the pop-up flash is perfect for that. Or if you need a shot at night? pop-up flash to the rescue. Or you want to do slow-speed synch...pop-up flash...works fine. And more uses as well. But cementing it SHUT? Dumb idea. Maybe also fill the filter threads with epoxy as well? You know, to prevent filter use?

There are numerous articles on the web, detailing the NEW way to shoot fashion/avante gard flash work with a flash unit literally as CLOSE to the axis of the lens as is possible, such as taping a camera-maker's speedlight right to the barrel of a 70-200 zoom lens. This on-axis fill light evenly fills in shadows quite nicely, and creates a look that is very different than what you get with a speedlight flash that is four to five inches higher than the lens axis. Check into this flash-taped-to-barrel-of zoom-lens look! This can be used solo, or with other flash units.

Look at Terry Richardson's new Vogue and W and othe rmagazine fashion/editorial shoots, using the extremely low-profile flash brackets he uses, where the speedlign is right at about the middle of the lens mount's height....this creates a sort of modern look, similar to what a large ringlight produces. Oh...wait...the Paul C. Buff company has a Moon Unit light that....fits right on the camera itself, and the lens shoot right out from the middle of the "doughnut".

Ooopsie....yet more contradictory evidence about "where" flash units belong....

 

[Destin]

[QUOTE="480sparky, post: 3716368, member: 89707]

If money isn't an issue, then you're more than capable of buying such systems for anyone who wants one.[/QUOTE]

You're missing the point. If someone can afford a camera with a hot shoe (at least several hundred $) then they can likely save up a hundred bucks for a wireless flash setup.

You no longer need a several hundred dollar flash and a several hundred dollar pair of pocket wizards to run a wireless flash setup. There are cheaper options available.

 

[pixmedic]

[QUOTE="480sparky, post: 3716368, member: 89707]

If money isn't an issue, then you're more than capable of buying such systems for anyone who wants one.

You're missing the point. If someone can afford a camera with a hot shoe (at least several hundred $) then they can likely save up a hundred bucks for a wireless flash setup.

You no longer need a several hundred dollar flash and a several hundred dollar pair of pocket wizards to run a wireless flash setup. There are cheaper options available.[/QUOTE]

how about the point about not needing a wireless setup at all? shot plenty of wedding receptions, and a few baby pictures with the sb700 mounted on the camera bouncing off ceilings.
where did this idea that flashes dont work when mounted to the camera come from. its false.
off camera flash is great for some applications, but not all.

 

[480sparky]

You're missing the point. If someone can afford a camera with a hot shoe (at least several hundred $) then they can likely save up a hundred bucks for a wireless flash setup.

You no longer need a several hundred dollar flash and a several hundred dollar pair of pocket wizards to run a wireless flash setup. There are cheaper options available.

I'm glad you believe everyone who uses a camera is dripping cash all over. Fact is, some would love to be able to buy a "several hundred dollar" camera.

 

[Destin]

You're missing the point. If someone can afford a camera with a hot shoe (at least several hundred $) then they can likely save up a hundred bucks for a wireless flash setup.

You no longer need a several hundred dollar flash and a several hundred dollar pair of pocket wizards to run a wireless flash setup. There are cheaper options available.

I'm glad you believe everyone who uses a camera is dripping cash all over. Fact is, some would love to be able to buy a "several hundred dollar" camera.

Sparky, you're still ignoring my point and frankly just being ridiculous. Clearly anyone who's debating this as a problem already has a several hundred dollar camera, and the OP clearly also has a several hundred dollar lens.

If someone had the means to acquire those items, it's reasonable to assume they can get $100 together in some way to get off camera flash if they want to.

I got involved with photography at 16 years old, and busted my ass washing dishes to be able to buy some cheap camera gear. I saved for TWO YEARS to buy my first 70-200 2.8.

I've left photography twice now because cash got tight in hard times and I had to make sacrifices and sell off equipment to buy a vehicle/pay tuition.

Yes, I'm in a much more fortunate place now and have some better equipment with plans to get more. But I've been as broke as anyone that's into the hobby, and I haven't forgotten my roots.

I'm simply saying that off camera flash isn't the $1000+ investment that it was 5-7 years ago, and it's now attainable to the average non-professional hobbyist.

 

[Derrel]

...SNIP>>>off camera flash is great for some applications, but not all.

Exactly right. The cost and affordability of off-camera flash has no bearing on its usefulness. One issue that has NOT been brought up is that the better on-camera speedlight units give incredible in-the-dark AF assist patterns which almost no off-camera flash units can give. An on-camera speedlight on the right camera can allow you to focus, literally, in the dark, or in really dim,dim lighting situations.

Bounce flash, bracketed flash, flash taped to the lens barrel, low-rise bracketed flash, pop-up flash, flash bounced off a Flashbender or homemade diffuser, long-throw "foofing" of bounced flash at very high ISO levels (in the Denis Reggie six-figures for a wedding style), there are plenty of uses in the regular, real world for plain 'ole hotshoe-connected flash, either directly IN the hotshoe, or connected with a TTL remote cord, or trigger-tripped flash that is basically, ON the camera.

The biggest no-brainer that seems to not have been mentioned is that, with a camera-mounted flash, the photographer, his camera and lens, and the flash unit can move around as one unit--no need to lug a lightstand and modifier from place to place. Agreed, off-camera flash is no longer the $1,000 investment it was 5-7 years ago; but it is still has basically the same old issues with weight, size, and effort to set up and to move, and to fiddle with while actually shooting.

I bought my first professional Speedotron studio flash system in 1986,and never have I thought it could replace Vivitar or Nikon or Canon speedlight flashes for me, and it never did. I consider a 1-meter pigtail TTL remote cord like the Nikon SC-17 cord to still be "on-camera" flash.

 

[Frank F.]

I never did what my friend did. And I used my little flash on board in case of emergency with improvised diffusors. Yet for serious Strobism I would rather use a pocket wizard with 5 Cheapo Flash Units instead of Nikon's CLS. For fill flash I use on axis but with a real flash that does not have the trouble of the little one being obscured by hoods of 14-24 or 1.4/24..

Two of my 3 DSLRs do not feature a poop flash .... neither the D3 nor the D500 have it.