# Gary Fong diffuser during the day



## DScience (Sep 27, 2009)

Hi all. Here is a shot I took up in Boulder Colorado on Pearl ST mall. I used a GF light diffuser on an sb-600, hand held below camera left. The sun is coming from the right, and I used the flash so that the side of his face wouldn't be too dark. C&C welcome as always!









This one I the strobe is above camera hand held.


----------



## syphlix (Sep 27, 2009)

i like the lighting in these.. framing 'im not sure... seems off to me... 

they are really cool though... are these random people you just asked to take a photo of?... 

how do you get the images to look so... gritty?... not sure how to describe it... but that feel i really like... is it in post processing?


----------



## DScience (Sep 27, 2009)

I tried different crop variations. It's really hard for me to crop something square, and have a completely centered subject. I may try some variations later, but I left these ones as they were, however I did crop the first one a bit but mainly for consistency with the squares in the BG. 

Anyway, they were PP in Lightroom and PS, and noise ninja (i believe). I used a 50mm 1.4, at 1.4 for both shots so the subject is definitely pronounced, which makes it feel more '_gritty_' I believe. Plus, I did do quite a bit of PP.


----------



## syphlix (Sep 27, 2009)

what kind of PP (if you don't mind me asking)?  sharpening for the subject?


----------



## DScience (Sep 27, 2009)

Not exactly, in fact I didn't do ANY sharpening in PS. 

I didn't use PS for the first one, all was done in Lightroom. They were shot in RAW, so that gives you the ability to really mess with things. I can send you the preset if you have lightroom. The sharp feeling is mostly just getting the subject in focus, and then using different settings in LR.


----------



## syphlix (Sep 27, 2009)

sure i'll try out the preset... i'll pm you my email address...


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Sep 27, 2009)

I'd offer my opinion on these, but they're posted in the wrong forum.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 27, 2009)

If I can't post my pics in here, neither can you.  

These belong somewhere other than the beginners forum.


----------



## DScience (Sep 27, 2009)

fiveoboy01 said:


> I'd offer my opinion on these, but they're posted in the wrong forum.





inTempus said:


> If I can't post my pics in here, neither can you.
> 
> These belong somewhere other than the beginners forum.




Um, I am curious as to why these are posted in the wrong forum? I am definitely a beginner.


----------



## musicaleCA (Sep 27, 2009)

Why use a GF diffuser in broad daylight? For this kind of lighting, a small softbox or beauty dish would do just as well, and likely get faster recycle times and far more life from your batteries in the process. The GF will be throwing light all over, and it'll just get lost on the sides.


----------



## DScience (Sep 27, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Why use a GF diffuser in broad daylight? For this kind of lighting, *a small softbox or beauty dish would do just as well*, and likely get faster recycle times and far more life from your batteries in the process. The GF will be throwing light all over, and it'll just get lost on the sides.



Do you know what a GF diffuser is? 

I would sure hope a softbox or beauty dish would do better. All I am using is a small flash, with a cheap diffuser and firing it off camera. I am using it to take pics of people on the street. Now, how complicated would it be to set up a softbox or beauty dish to get a quick snap of some street performer? 

The GF diffuser is a great way to create soft light from a flash.


----------



## KmH (Sep 27, 2009)

The lighting and processing look good.  :thumbup:

The compositions...... I'm not real bullish about, and here's why I say that:

#1 The negative space behind the first gentlemen and him looking straight out the side of the frame doesn't make sense. His gaze leads us right off the image camera right and it's hard to make the eye look behind his head. If he were looking at the camera it would work much better.

 It's just very natural to want to look where he is looking, but there's no more image there so you loose the viewer quickly. Maybe to quickly.

I'd say crop about 1/2 way from the left edge of the frame to his sleeve and give up a bit of the negative space. That will get his left eye closer to the power point. I think that will make more gut sense and keep the viewer engaged a little longer.  

#2 Cropping to a vertical format would eliminate the bright spots left and right of your subject and make the image much stronger. I'd say crop quite close to his right shoulder and just enough to loose the bright spot in the upper right quadrant and that blown t-shirt.

In the daytime an on flash diffuser wastes a lot of light, and that means battery power and cycle time is wasted too. With fill, the slight harshness of an undiffused low power light can actually be a plus visually, while also reaping the other tech benefits, longer battery life and shorter cycle time.

If the tech advantages aren't important for you, keep using the diffuser, though a kind of overkill it won't hurt your images.

Using OCF for a bit of fill in the daytime can make some killer images. Use enough speedlight power to beat snot out of the sunlight and they'll look even better because the backgrounds can be darker by a larger ratio because of a smaller aperture.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 27, 2009)

DScience said:


> fiveoboy01 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd offer my opinion on these, but they're posted in the wrong forum.
> ...



I'm a beginner too, but it has less to do with you time behind the camera vs. The quality of your work.  Looking at your flickr account, it's safe to say you're not a novice.

I tried the "I've had my camera less than a year" line a few weeks ago and it didn't work for me either.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Sep 27, 2009)

What tharsmen said.

I expect to see crappy photos here, this is a forum to help people with their work.  That said, you might see a few of my pics in here:meh:

Besides, you'll get better critique if you post in the gallery forums, because you won't have every noob on the site going "wow, that's a great photo!"  I'd rather have harsh critique from experienced guys over a bunch of back patting from people who don't know what they're talking about.

Time really has nothing to do with it, some people catch on and advance their skills very fast, others don't.  Like tharsmen said, a quick scan of your flickr account certainly doesn't say "beginner" to me.


----------



## DScience (Sep 27, 2009)

Well I appreciate the feedback KMH, it was very helpful. I think that's the first time you've responded to any of my posts. )

I suppose from now on I won't post my photos in this forum.


----------



## syphlix (Sep 27, 2009)

which forum should these be in?  the photo gallery ones?


----------



## inTempus (Sep 27, 2009)

syphlix said:


> which forum should these be in?  the photo gallery ones?


They would fit into either General or People I think.


----------



## syphlix (Sep 27, 2009)

ah.  i'm so used to just looking in this forum... i now have to start looking at others... more clicks :/


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 28, 2009)

> The GF diffuser is a great way to create soft light from a flash.


Only when there are surfaces surrounding you, for the light to bounce off of.  If there are no bounce surfaces and the light is only getting to the subject directly from the light source, any added softness is marginal because it's only slightly bigger than a bare flash head...and size & proximity are the only ways to make light softer.

With that out of the way...I don't care how you are using your light, if you can get great results like this, then do what you want.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 28, 2009)

I was going to mention what Mike said, but I was thinking it was obvious to a GF user.  Without walls and a ceiling, the GF defuser doesn't really do much for you in terms of casting light.  The GF relies heavily on having walls in relatively close proximity to the subject. Without them you're getting very little light from your flash to your subject as the defuser blasts the light in a 360 degree circle around you, and straight up.


----------



## musicaleCA (Sep 28, 2009)

DScience said:


> musicaleCA said:
> 
> 
> > Why use a GF diffuser in broad daylight? For this kind of lighting, *a small softbox or beauty dish would do just as well*, and likely get faster recycle times and far more life from your batteries in the process. The GF will be throwing light all over, and it'll just get lost on the sides.
> ...



No need to be snide. It was an honest question. I will take your first question for an honest inquiry of whether or not I know what a Gary Fong Lightsphere is and not an underhanded attempt to be stand-offish, and answer candidly: Yes, I do know what a GF diffuser is. If I did not, I wouldn't comment on it.

When using a small flash, using a GF diffuser compounds one of the greatest limitations of these small devices: power output. By bouncing light everywhere, in a bare-bulb-like style, you lose a lot of power when there is nothing for that light to bounce off of (that and you lose all direction to the light when you're indoors, but that's another matter entirely). As for the diffuser being cheap, that's simply not true, unless you know someone I don't. GF diffusers are expensive by any measure.

I believe you erroneously thought that I was speaking of rather large softboxes. As I did say "small softbox", I am miffed that you would come to such a conclusion. I was referring to softboxes like the LumiQuest Softbox III, or this DIY beauty dish. Both would simply be a case of strapping it to the flash and going about your business.


----------



## DScience (Sep 28, 2009)

Big Mike said:


> > The GF diffuser is a great way to create soft light from a flash.
> 
> 
> Only when there are surfaces surrounding you, for the light to bounce off of.  If there are no bounce surfaces and the light is only getting to the subject directly from the light source, any added softness is marginal because it's only slightly bigger than a bare flash head...and size & proximity are the only ways to make light softer.
> ...





inTempus said:


> I was going to mention what Mike said, but I was thinking it was obvious to a GF user.  Without walls and a ceiling, the GF defuser doesn't really do much for you in terms of casting light.  The GF relies heavily on having walls in relatively close proximity to the subject. Without them you're getting very little light from your flash to your subject as the defuser blasts the light in a 360 degree circle around you, and straight up.




Well first off I am not trying to start an argument, because I am well aware that I am a beginner and the three who this is in response to know way more than I for sure. However there are the key points to keep in mind: 1) I have a completely different intent with photography than the professional; 2) I came too all these conclusions from pure experience and nothing else. Thus I use the GF diffuser for what I am interested in shooting, because it does the best job for the equipment I currently have at the moment. 

Now I would like to give a little explanation for my argument, and I have pics. :mrgreen:

First let me explain briefly what I first started with. I tried many different homemade diffusers from opaque shopping bags to other random things around the house. The thing I found that worked best was actually the piece of foam that goes around your lens in a brand new box; because it's round and the top is enclosed it worked well. I tried the diffuser from a store which is just the small plastic thing that slides over your flash (sb-600) which is made for almost all brands. Like this: http://images.smarter.com/300x300x15/6/04/57604.jpg

Then I got the GF, and one reason is so I could take pics of flowers at night with bokeh in the background. I tried it with a bare flash and it was HORRIBLE. When I first tested the GF once I got it, here is the experiment I did. I simply went into a dark room in my basement and took pics with the flash. I did it tonight just to show how the GF really does make a diff. 

1. Bare flash: *Exposure:* *0.001 sec (1/2000)* *Aperture:* *f/1.4* *Focal Length:* *50 mm* *Exposure:* *0.00* *ISO Speed:* 200






2. Bounced flash off wall to the left of subject: 
*Exposure:* *1/3200 sec* *Aperture:* *f/1.4* *Focal Length:* *50 mm* *Exposure:* *0.00* *ISO Speed:* 200





3. W/ GF diffuser aimed straight at the subject: 
*Exposure:* *0.001 sec (1/1250)* *Aperture:* *f/1.4* *Focal Length:* *50 mm* *Exposure:* *0.00* *ISO Speed:* 200





Here is another set that is even more convincing, in same order if you want exif i'll add.

***Now I know that you could improve each shot, and even the GF shot is underexposed. But the point I'm trying to show is how the GF really does change the character of light you can obtain, and I personally think in some cases it's better than a bare light.***


4.) Bare flash:





5.) w/ GF same exact settings:





Now here are what I really use it for. These were all taken using the GF diffuser and my purpose was to get a better exposure of background and surrounding parts of the photos.


----------



## Plato (Sep 28, 2009)

syphlix said:


> i like the lighting in these.. framing 'im not sure... seems off to me...
> 
> they are really cool though... are these random people you just asked to take a photo of?...
> 
> how do you get the images to look so... gritty?... not sure how to describe it... but that feel i really like... is it in post processing?



The problem with the framing in #1 is that he's looking toward the "small" side.  He should be on the other side of the frame OR should be looking in the opposite direction.


----------



## DScience (Sep 28, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > musicaleCA said:
> ...




I apologize, I was a little snide. I guess I figured if someone knew what a GF diffuser was, it would be obvious as to why I would use it over something like a beauty dish or even a small softbox (which I am well aware exist). 

To further explain why I use it let me give an example. I go shoot downtown in the city frequently and I like to have just one small bag. I can fit my camera with my 50mm on it, plus my sb-600 and the GF hangs on the side. It's easy to whip out if I want to get some different lighting options. I agree that a softbox and beauty dish can get you better use of the flash, but now all I have is the GF.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 28, 2009)

Interesting experiment Dscience.  I like the examples you've given.  I assume you're leaving the flash pointing straight upwards with the GF attached or do you position it some other way?


----------



## DScience (Sep 28, 2009)

inTempus said:


> Interesting experiment Dscience.  I like the examples you've given.  I assume you're leaving the flash pointing straight upwards with the GF attached or do you position it some other way?




I've tried different variations, and I have found that pointing it straight up is best when used as a fill flash for a larger area (ie a room). However when I am focusing on a single object, and am pretty close to subject, I will sometimes point it directly forward, with the flash head down all the way. Now that you mention this, I think I am going to try with some different angles to see the effects.

All my examples, including the _fun_ ones, were taken with it pointed directly at the subject, not up.


----------



## musicaleCA (Sep 29, 2009)

Fair enough (that for now you only have the GF), though in terms of quick set-up and take-down, I think you'll find a Softbox III or the like to be quite similar, and you'll use less flash power in the process (and actually get a larger effective size than the GF to boot), which can be an important consideration in daylight. I had to do a profile recently, outside, at 2PM, on a crystal clear day. The light was so bright and harsh I had to desperately over-power the sun with my 580. Didn't work, at full power. I suspect that had I been able to trigger all three of my flashes, bare, I could've managed it without blowing the sky (I lost my bloody Cactus V4 transmitter. Grrr).


----------



## inTempus (Sep 29, 2009)

DScience said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting experiment Dscience.  I like the examples you've given.  I assume you're leaving the flash pointing straight upwards with the GF attached or do you position it some other way?
> ...


Interesting.

Do you have the top dome on the GF, or do you not have it on there and just have it open?


----------



## DScience (Sep 29, 2009)

inTempus said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > inTempus said:
> ...




I keep the top dome on all the time.


----------



## inTempus (Sep 29, 2009)

DScience said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> > DScience said:
> ...


Ok.

If you're outside and don't have walls around... and you're pointing the GF directly at the subject with the dome on... then I imagine the results would be about the same as using a $10 StoFen defuser.  The surface area is a little larger on the GF's dome (which if you're outside is the only thing firing light at your subject).

I have both products, I'll have to do some tests from a tripod - side by side - to see what the results are.


----------



## DScience (Sep 29, 2009)

inTempus said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > inTempus said:
> ...




Seriously try this out, I am very curious. If you do, post results of course. :thumbup:


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 30, 2009)

Your example photos are all very different from the portraits you first posted.  Mainly, they are inside, where something like the 'Fong Dong' is more useful because of the bounce surfaces.  Secondly, they are fairly close up, which is another situation where it really does make a noticeable difference.  

The softness of a light source is a result of the size of the source and the proximity to the subject.  If your light is 10 feet away from the subject, and you only increase it's size a little bit (say from the size of a bare flash to the size of a Lightsphere)...it won't make much difference (but it will waste a lot of light/power).  But if you are very close to the subject, especially a smaller subject, the slight increase in size can be much more significant.  And of course, as the light bounces around and back to the subject, it gives the effect of softer light.


----------



## SlimPaul (Oct 8, 2009)

I really like the first one! Great shot!


----------



## DScience (Oct 8, 2009)

Big Mike said:


> Your example photos are all very different from the portraits you first posted.  Mainly, they are inside, where something like the 'Fong Dong' is more useful because of the bounce surfaces.  Secondly, they are fairly close up, which is another situation where it really does make a noticeable difference.
> 
> The softness of a light source is a result of the size of the source and the proximity to the subject.  If your light is 10 feet away from the subject, and you only increase it's size a little bit (say from the size of a bare flash to the size of a Lightsphere)...it won't make much difference (but it will waste a lot of light/power).  But if you are very close to the subject, especially a smaller subject, the slight increase in size can be much more significant.  And of course, as the light bounces around and back to the subject, it gives the effect of softer light.




I just disagree with you because I have tried many things to compare, and I think the GF does a great job in daylight, for what I used it for. 

I have to ask, have you ever actually used the GF Lightsphere 2 and experimented with it? Because it seems as though you are just using generalities about light in general with no real world applications. Anyway, I don't get what your talking about because I wasn't 10 feet away from any subject. This to me is a sign of old thinking. People in all fields who have been in the field for a long time, tend to disregard new uses and techniques. That's fine. Let me show you other examples of how I'm using the GF in bright daylight because there is no way you can refute these.







Here is just one. There is no way you can get light this soft with a bare flash. No way.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Oct 8, 2009)

DScience, why do you bother?
Why try convincing people of anything?

What you are doing works for you. Keep doing it.


----------



## KmH (Oct 9, 2009)

DScience said:


> Here is just one. There is no way you can get light this soft with a bare flash. No way.


True, but there are far less expensive ways to create the same effect than using the Fong gizmo.


----------



## Kcc (Oct 9, 2009)

DScience said:


> Big Mike said:
> 
> 
> > Your example photos are all very different from the portraits you first posted. Mainly, they are inside, where something like the 'Fong Dong' is more useful because of the bounce surfaces. Secondly, they are fairly close up, which is another situation where it really does make a noticeable difference.
> ...


 
I think you misusderstanded what Big Mike is trying to say, photo shooting portraits with GF's sphere outdoor gives you different power output than macro or close-up photo taking.

Portraits - the flash will be farer away from your object, therefore you will need more flash output power. You lose some light from using GF's sphere because it is a 360 degree defuser. 

Macro or close-up - the flash will be or could be closer to your object, therefore you will not need as much flash output power. You are still using a 360 degree defuser for the close-up, but with the flash closer distance to the subject, which the GF is more help at close-up than outdoor portraits because you gets some of the lost light you loss on the background (light up the background from the 360 degree sphere).

Nothing wrong of what you are doing with GF's sphere outdoor or close-up, some people thread here are trying to share some of their ideas or experience of using defuser or light. I am a beginner also, which I am into strobe too, I am using a Lumiquest softbox III for outdoor portrait. I found that the softbox uses less power to light up the whole body of the subject than using a Stofen defuser.


----------



## DScience (Oct 9, 2009)

KmH said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > Here is just one. There is no way you can get light this soft with a bare flash. No way.
> ...





Yea, Ok. One thing I think is funny is how you all talk like you know but show no real examples.


----------



## DScience (Oct 9, 2009)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> DScience, why do you bother?
> Why try convincing people of anything?
> 
> What you are doing works for you. Keep doing it.




It's called argument. It's a philosophical technique, try it sometime! )

Also, I like to correct the pros.


----------



## inTempus (Oct 9, 2009)

Here's a quick test, I forgot to do this earlier. 

Conditions:  7:30pm - completely dark outside - outdoors, no walls or other objects to reflect light.  House is about 5 feet to the rear of camera.

Camera:  Canon 1DMk3
Lens:  Canon 50mm f/1.2L
Aperture: f/1.4
Mode:  AV
ISO: 100
Setup:  Tripod mounted, remote trigger

These are uncropped, unedited, resized and posted.

#1:  Bare flash  (pointed directly at subject)





#2:  Sto-Fen (pointed directly at subject)





#3:  Gary Fong Cloud (pointed directly at subject, dome in place)





I chose the 50mm and f/1.4 because that seems to be the most popular combo used by Dscience.

I wish I had some potted plants or something more interesting to shoot tonight - sorry.

I should have manually set the WB, it would appear the GF jacked with the WB, or the camera freaked out.


----------



## inTempus (Oct 9, 2009)

Looking at the images, there really isn't much difference between the Sto-Fen and the GF defusers.  The GF seems to make the light come from a slightly different angle even though it's not.  

I should also mention that the flash is a Canon 580EXII mounted on the hot shoe mount.


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 9, 2009)

Is it possible that the house caused a slight cast that farked with your WB when using the GF?


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2009)

Here's a web page ranking a dozen different diffuser units for portable speedlights. It's hard to pick a winner because they are all...wait for it...about the SAME in terms of performance.

The Best Flash Diffuser @ PHOTO-TIPS-ONLINE.com

I've looked at quite a few of DScience's photos and examined the EXIF information for many of his shots. I maintain that all the Fong Diffuser is doing for him is providing very subtle fill lighting; many of his shots are done outdoors in bright light conditions, with shutter speeds as high as 1/2500 second and usually at an aperture of f/1.4...the Fong Diffuser is making a very minimal contribution to his lighting, but it *is* filling in shadows and thus reducing the contrast ratio of his shots, most of which were shot using a D90 with the standard tone curve.


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 9, 2009)

Regarding that site, note how low the GF diffuser is. :greenpbl:

I think the Vertex should get a higher rating, simply because of it's flexibility, but that's just me.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 9, 2009)

Vertex, schmertex...how about the simple DiffuseiT, which retails for $14.50 and scores almost as high as any of the other products  DiffuseiT flash reflector review: first impression @ PHOTO-TIPS-ONLINE.com

...it is based upon the diffuser me and my college PJ buddies used back in the 1980's....we called it the "three by five index card"...Velcro wasn't nearly as common then as it is now, so we resorted to the high-tech 1980's style MacGuyver fix-it-all solution, the high-technology, oh-so-good-for-your-health blue colored asparagus rubber band. Some radicals resorted to gaffer's tape, but I went with the crowd...played it safe...

Yup, we'd go to the grocery store and buy asparagus bunches, which came bundled with these pretty good quality,strong blue rubber bands. We'd bend the index card a bit,leaving about 1.5 inches on the flash head for a good grip, and pop a rubber band or two around the expensive 3 cent index card. On that you could pencil in a few exposures and distances and precise f/stops. Which you measured ahead of time with your then-cool Minolta AutoMeter III-F, which was tres chic at the time.

The DiffuseiT is the equivalent of a 3x5 index card, which worked 25 years ago remarkably well.


----------



## musicaleCA (Oct 10, 2009)

Yeah, but you can get light coming from two or three directions with the Vertex. Do that with your DiffuseiT. :greenpbl:


----------



## inTempus (Oct 10, 2009)

musicaleCA said:


> Is it possible that the house caused a slight cast that farked with your WB when using the GF?


Probably so.  Since the GF blasts light in all directions it probably caused a slightly yellow cast to come off of my house (which is yellow).

What's interesting to note is that nothing is apparently gained from it blasting light in all directions outside.  Inside, it does help to soften shadows but outside, it doesn't do anything for the image other than perhaps softening the light overall since light is being wasted going in directions that aren't useful.  

You can accomplish the same softened light using a cheaper and smaller Sto-Fen by adjusting the compensation on the flash.  In terms of light diffusion, I see no benefit to using the GF.

I'll do some daytime shots someone wants me to, but I felt the nighttime shots would be more telling about the actual light cast.


----------



## inTempus (Oct 12, 2009)

After work I grabbed the 1D, 85mm f/1.2L, the 580EXII and the Sto-Fen to shoot a neighbors flower that's in their front yard.  I shot in day light (before sunset) but I went with an f/2.8 aperture vs. the 1.4 used mostly by Dscience.  I wanted more detail in the flower and didn't want part of it OOF - personal preference.







ISO: 100
Av: f/2.8
Tv: 1/80
Focal: 85mm

I used a Canon remote flash cord so TTL was enabled.  I was shooting in manual mode.

I would say the light is pretty soft...


----------



## DScience (Oct 12, 2009)

how come you used a cord???


oh wait, canon doesn't have CLS. :lmao:



joke


----------



## inTempus (Oct 12, 2009)

DScience said:


> how come you used a cord???
> 
> 
> oh wait, canon doesn't have CLS. :lmao:
> ...


Because CLS is useless in daylight.  

If I wanted CLS, I would buy a 7D.  But I really have no use for it, not to mention the 1D doesn't have a built in flash kind of like the D3 doesn't.


----------



## DScience (Oct 12, 2009)

how is CLS useless in daylight? I use it all the time in daylight? uhhhh....


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Oct 12, 2009)

I think tharsmein is pulling your chain a bit. CLS is far from useless in daylight. The range is reduced yes, and in some situations I've had to put my hand in front of the pop-up to direct light to the slave. But there are plenty of times I've had it work just fine even in very direct sunlight.

I have no idea if Canon offers something similar to the SU-800 but that would enable someone to use ttl with a slave unit if there was no pop-up on the body.


----------



## inTempus (Oct 12, 2009)

fiveoboy01 said:


> I think tharsmein is pulling your chain a bit.  CLS is far from useless in daylight.  The range is reduced yes, and in some situations I've had to put my hand in front of the pop-up to direct light to the slave.  But there are plenty of times I've had it work just fine even in very direct sunlight.


I am, it can work under the right conditions and tonight it would have worked fine given I wasn't in direct sunlight.

I just had to do some ribbing back.


----------



## rufus5150 (Oct 12, 2009)

fiveoboy01 said:


> I think tharsmein is pulling your chain a bit. CLS is far from useless in daylight. The range is reduced yes, and in some situations I've had to put my hand in front of the pop-up to direct light to the slave. But there are plenty of times I've had it work just fine even in very direct sunlight.
> 
> I have no idea if Canon offers something similar to the SU-800 but that would enable someone to use ttl with a slave unit if there was no pop-up on the body.



The ST-E2 and the 580exII can both act as masters to control remote EOS strobes while maintaining eTTL-II functionality.


----------



## fiveoboy01 (Oct 12, 2009)

I figured the 580 could, my problem with that is that I find it sort of pointless to use an expensive speedlight as a commander only when there are cheaper alternatives.  Good to know Canon offers a commander-style unit to mount on the hotshoe.


----------



## inTempus (Oct 12, 2009)

fiveoboy01 said:


> I figured the 580 could, my problem with that is that I find it sort of pointless to use an expensive speedlight as a commander only when there are cheaper alternatives.  Good to know Canon offers a commander-style unit to mount on the hotshoe.


The 7D has Canon's version of CLS... it uses its built in flash the same way Nikon does.  I'm sure that all future Canon releases will have this system going forward.


----------



## ssnxp (Oct 27, 2009)

Keep arguing! I'm learning a lot


----------

