>> Julian Loke schrieb:
>> The lack of E-TTL alone is enough to avoid the Elan ...
> "Thomas Bantel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I believe it is enough reason for you. Still, I'm not a believer
> when it comes to E-TTL. While it is likely to make significantly less
> flash exposure errors than plain TTL, it is still not comparable to
> using an external flash meter. ...
Hi Thomas and List,
I know that Canon TTL flash came in four or five "flavours":
1) None (i.e. EF-M, which needs the sensor on an auto-thyristor flash)
2) A-TTL (early) with Single flash sensor (like on my EOS 1000FN)
3) A-TTL (late) with 4 segment, 3 zone sensor (like on the Elan 7E)
4) E-TTL (early) = basic Wireless (WETTL) slave control
5) E-TTL (late) = WETTL slave ratio control
On my EOS 1000FN, the single TTL flash sensor was terribly unreliable
with off-centre subjects. I have so many burnt-out flash pictures
that I had given up on TTL and used manual GN calcs instead :-(
The newer 3 zone TTL system seems to be *MUCH* better. Other than the
Elan 7E, I cannot remember which EOS bodies have the 3 zone flash.
IMHO, the *Best* thing about the E-TTL system is Flash Exposure Lock
(FEL), which functions as an internal reflectance flash meter!
Can I stop raving now (at least for the next few minutes :-)
Cheers
Julian Loke
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
