"Jim Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, I think E-TTL is nice, but in what way would say a photo taken
> under flash conditions like normal room light be better with an on
> camera flash? What I get now with TTL is nicely balanced ambient
> and subject. ...
Hi Jim,
Your comments remind me of a time when I only had a cheap TTL-only
flash (which broke), and I thought that A-TTL was somehow "better".
It turned out that A-TTL only metered from a pre-exposure flash to
"guess" at a minimum aperture and the camera still used simple TTL
control for flash quenching.
In my hands, TTL would not work well unless the subject filled more
than one third of the frame. And my camera, like nearly all EOS
cameras, could not use the A-TTL out-of-distance warning :-(
Like its predecessor, E-TTL has features for both automatic and
manual flash. The manual E-TTL features that cannot be replicated
with TTL or A-TTL are the main factors that made me want to upgrade
from a type B body to a type A EOS body:
1) FP flash - (no more ND filters for daylight fill flash :-)
2) Flash exposure lock - in effect, a metered manual flash mode
3) Wireless slave control with true ratio control
4) Compatibility with Canon digital cameras/camcorders
I consider the other "automatic" features of E-TTL, such as
linking to the active focussing point (AIM), and flash/ambient
balance, are secondary in my estimation.
Then again, I don't understand why Canon didn't make the pop-up
flash on Elan 7/EOS 30 E-TTL, just like on the digital EOS D30 :-(
Another item to add to the dreaded "wishlist".
Cheers
Julian Loke
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
