Metz MZ3 - Auto vs ETTL

[goatee]

I've had mine for a little while now, and saw Keiffer also has one, and Tim asked him to start a thread on what it's like, so I thought I'd jump the gun!

Quite simply, set the MZ3 to auto, and you're laughing, leave it in ETTL, and you'll cry (probably). There is one proviso - if you put your camera to P, then it sets the aperture to some crazy amount like f32 the whole time, Av, Tv, and M all work fine though.

I have found the best results are obtained bouncing the flash, and using the secondary reflector with the shield on - because I only have a 50mm lens, and like taking head and shoulder shots, I need to be very close, and find it's too bright without the shield on.

What I can't understand is why other flash manufacturers haven't added secondary reflectors - it makes the Lumiquest 80-20 redundant, as the capability is built in.

I tried ETTL, and found results to be wildly inconsistent - on Auto I get 90% or so spot on exposure, with ETTL, I'd say around only 20-30% are spot on, with another 20-30% close enough to adjust the RAW file to compensate.

For me, it's a no brainer - the MZ-3 is a fantastic flash, with plenty of power for my needs, and the only thing which would be nice would be wireless triggering, but since it's ETTL, there's no preflash, so I can just use optical slaves I guess (although I have no real idea about this, as it's something I haven't looked into at all).

If I had an ETTLII capable body I think I'd still keep the MZ3 over getting a Canon flash. Why? Because it's ETTLII compatible, and I don't see any advantage in getting a much more expensive Canon flash, when this beaut works a treat!

[tim]

Thanks Goatee, I was looking forward to reading this (which sounds like an odd thing to say!)

Good to hear auto's working out for you, any chance of a few side-by-shots on ETTL and auto? Say a dark scene, an average scene, and a light scene? All in full auto, no FEC, straight flash?

There's an excellent article (http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc031.htm) on smartshooter.com (free registration required, and worthwhile) that also recommends this flash. I ummed and ah'd about it when I bought my last flash, and finally went for a 580 because of wireless ETTL, which does come in very handy, but i'd love to have a play with one of the Metz units one day.

[Keiffer]

Hi Goatee, Glad you jumped the gun:-) From the little time I've had my MZ3 I too found, so far that auto is the most consistant and without a doubt that ETTL is the worst setting you can use with this flash, Almost every shot over exposed. But again I only had it a day so I was going to say anything yet without more testing. So far Auto without the reflector shield and the head set to 60 degrees seems to be very good(this is with an 8' ceiling). I would have posted pics but, like I said I wasn't really going to post yet and I deleted the shots I took yesterday(they were OOF) but the exposure was right on. My test so far have only been indoors with incandesant lighting, Today i will test it under flouresant and outside lighting and get back to you on that.
I also haven't try it in anything other than Manual so far(my camera). So I will also try it in Av and TV today and see what I get. I also bought the Stofen for it and haven't tried that yet either. Oh by the way, I also tried my test with my 50mm and my 70-200 and all seemed ok. But now I'm doing my test with my 28-105 lens. I will get back to you guys later today with some pics and more findings.

[Keiffer]

Whoa Tim :-) you must have posted the same time as I did LOL I didn't see you there. Thanks for the link. And I too will try that test you want.

[tim]

I'm nowhere yet i'm everywhere ;)

I've seen what was called the "wink flash", a small flash head set in the front of the flash as fill, is that the same as this one has? It looks pretty damn useful.

[goatee]

Hi Tim,
yes, it's a secondary reflector, which can be turned on or off - basically, it gets 15% of the light when flash fires full power (manual says it can vary a little when not on full power). It also comes with a shade which cuts it by a further 50% - for anything closer than a couple of feet, that's pretty essential.

Keiffer - yeah, I've had the head at 75 or 90 degrees, with the secondary reflector turned on, and had some lovely results (slightly improved by use of my jugsphere ( http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=107621 )

Tim - when I get a chance I'll happily post comparison pics - probably be a little while, cos I'm really snowed under with work at the moment.

[René Damkot]

but since it's ETTL, there's no preflash, so I can just use optical slaves I guess

I think you mean auto flash. ETTL does use a preflash...

[goatee]

I think you mean auto flash. ETTL does use a preflash...

Oops, you're right of course!

[woodsie]

I have an 54 MZ-4 and I've also got an MZ-3 in the shop getting a quote to repair it. I'm using this with a 20D. I havn't had a chance to use the MZ-4 with the 20D very much yet. But I did use the MZ-3 extensively in auto mode with my Pana FZ-20 and would expect the results to be the same as auto mode is camera independant. My observations are:

Auto mode works fantastically at getting the exposure right. If you need to adjust the exposure for fill flash it is very quick and easy.

TTL mode didn't work at all well with the 20D. After doing some research I found that my SCA-3102 foot for Canon is the M2 model (sticker on the foot if you remove it from the flash) which predates the 20D. I also read in a number of places that I need the M3 foot for the 20D. So that is on its way and I'll see if TTL works better with the new foot.

For fill flash with the flash in auto I only seem to be able to use manual mode to correctly expose the background. In Av mode the shutter is fixed at 1/250 and in Tv mode the apature is set at the smallest for the lens, and the exposure indicator doesn't work in either mode. The exposure indicator works correctly for manual mode.

According to the manual both the 54 MZ-3/4 and the 70 MZ-4 can operate in wireless remote mode as either master or slave in both auto and TTL mode. The slave must be fitted with a SCA-3082 foot, which is on its way. The SCA-3082 foot also works as an optical slave trigger which can be configured to ignore the E-TTL preflash. As I don't have the foot yet, this is all from the manual and I still need to see it in action.

So to get the whole setup working I still need.
SCA-3102 M3 foot for Canon - On back order
SCA-3082 slave foot - Should arrive tomorrow
Repaired MZ-3 if the quote is worth it

[goatee]

Thanks a lot for the info Woodsie. Just FYI, are you aware that Metz will upgrade your foot to an M3 for free?

The one thing which I would love would be for Metz to release a manual with one language on a page, for the MZ3/4 with the SCA3102 - I'd be prepared to pay for it, as at the moment, even though the manual is fairly comprehensive, because the flash works in so many different ways on so many cameras, it's pretty confusing!

ooh 444 posts :)

[Wilt]

>>are you aware that Metz will upgrade your foot to an M3 for free<<

goatee, can you point us in the right direction for how one exchanges 3102 M2 for a newer M3? I was not aware of this.

I purchased the M2 only a couple months ago, only to discover that my 45CL flashes would work with my Canon 20D in Auto mode. I am considering getting the 54MZ for ETTL with my 20D, and leave my 45CL for use with my Bronica ETRSi with TTL control, but do not want to have to spend money on a 3102M3 if I do not need to!

[goatee]

I spoke to Metz UK - according to the Metz website, you would need to talk to

Bogen Imaging Inc.
P.O. Box 506
Ramsey, N.J. 07446-0506
Telephone: 001-201-8189500
Fax: 001-201-8189177
E-Mail: info@bogenimaging.com

I believe that you send in your shoe, and they upgrade it for you, for free. They'll also downgrade it for you (on non-ETTLII bodies, the M1 is a good shoe to have I believe)

[Keiffer]

I took my foot off only to find there's no sticker on it stating whether it's a M1,2 or 3. I hope I won't have a problem with my D60 and when I upgrade to the 20D. So far I see no probs, so I guess I'll see what happens when I get my 20D.
So far I'm just shooting indoors(flouresant) and don't see much of a problem either in Auto or ETTL. I realized today why I was over exposing yesterday was because I was metering wrong.

[goatee]

I wouldn't worry too much - although the M3 only came out after the 20D came out, so you probably have an M2. Either way, see if it works - if it doesn't then send it in to Metz - they seem to have great customer service - mine is secondhand, but they were still really quick to answer a query about it. Following the information from Woodsie about the slave foot, even if I want to go wireless, I'll stick with Metz - can't see a reason to settle for Canon!

[woodsie]

Thanks goatee, I knew about the free upgrade, I think they modify your existing adapter. But the service centre for Metz is a bit slow here in Oz, so I decided to fork out the cash to avoid having any downtime on the flash while I waited for the conversion.

Another way to check if the foot is an M2 or M3 is to get your hands on a 20D and mount the flash on it. If you can select E-TTL and HSS it is an M3. If you can only select TTL and there is no HSS anywhere to be found you have an M2.

[goatee]

Great info Woodsie - thanks!

[Keiffer]

Quick question, The book says, Dark subject in front of a bright background use positive correction value(EV) 1 to 2 Fstops.
Bright subject in front of a dark background use negative EV -1 to -2 Fstops.
My question is, I have a flash cheat sheet that says the opposite. So which one is it?

[Keiffer]

Oh, and this is all done on the flash? not the cam right?

[goatee]

Keiffer - as with a lot of answers on POTN - I'd say give both a shot if you can with no FEC, and see how they come out. I don't think that using the on camera FEC will do anything, because I think that's for ETTL.

[Keiffer]

I gotcha Goatee, Well I have been experimenting with -1 to -2 but have yet to try +. Thanks for the heads up.

[Keiffer]

Tim, Just a heads up, I'll be posting pics tonight of Auto and ETTL. I think this is what you wanted to see.

[goatee]

ah great - thanks Keiffer (not that my name's Tim ;))

[tim]

Quick question, The book says, Dark subject in front of a bright background use positive correction value(EV) 1 to 2 Fstops.
Bright subject in front of a dark background use negative EV -1 to -2 Fstops.
My question is, I have a flash cheat sheet that says the opposite. So which one is it?

Without giving it too much thought, this sounds wrong to me. Give it a try and see what works.

[goatee]

Without giving it too much thought, this sounds wrong to me. Give it a try and see what works.

Actually, thinking about it, it does make sense in the same way that the camera metering can be fooled by a predominantly bright scene, but you want to meter on the dark thing, so you need to up the exposure to compensate, and vice versa.

[tim]

Try it and see!

[Jon]

Quick question, The book says, Dark subject in front of a bright background use positive correction value(EV) 1 to 2 Fstops.
Bright subject in front of a dark background use negative EV -1 to -2 Fstops.
My question is, I have a flash cheat sheet that says the opposite. So which one is it?
By "the book" are you referring to the Metz instruction manual? And is that then a "correction value" you set on the flash? Similarly, is the cheat sheet for that specific flash? Further, since I gather from this that the Metz does both E-TTL and auto-thyristor flash metering, is it possible that the settings are for the different modes, one for auto and the other for E-TTL, since the metering is done differently for each?

[Keiffer]

By "the book" are you referring to the Metz instruction manual? And is that then a "correction value" you set on the flash? Similarly, is the cheat sheet for that specific flash? Further, since I gather from this that the Metz does both E-TTL and auto-thyristor flash metering, is it possible that the settings are for the different modes, one for auto and the other for E-TTL, since the metering is done differently for each? The book is, the Metz manual. And yes they say correction value yet say to change the Ev. Is there a difference? No, I took it as a generic non metz or any other brand specific, the cheat sheet is an article on the net done by Dan Richards(Can't remember where I got it from). I don't know the answer to your last question about the metering and Auto thrister vs Ettl.

[Keiffer]

Ok here goes my test, Please don't judge the shots for quality and so forth. These are just to see if there are differences using Auto vs ETTL. The first 5 shots were all on auto, F4 aperature and ISO 100, now I'll list the specifics for each shot.
#1- Ev=0 60 degree head angle shutter speed 1/60 White card behind flash head

[Keiffer]

#2 Ev=0 Shutter speed 1/60 60 degree head angle No white card behind flash head

[Keiffer]

#3 Ev= 0 60 degree angle Shutter speed 1/8 no white card....Oh and by the way these all under flouresant lights.

[Keiffer]

#4 EV= -1 2/3 60 degree angle shutter speed 1 1/125

[Keiffer]

#5 EV= -1 2/3 Shutter speed 1/8 60 degree angle No white card behind flash for this, the one before and all the rest to follow.

[Keiffer]

Now this series is ETTL ISO 100 all with shutter speed of 1/10 except #6 which was 1/6. No white card on any of these.
#6 EV=0 60 degree angle

[Keiffer]

#7 EV=0 60 degree angle

[Keiffer]

#8 EV=0 60 degree angle

[Keiffer]

#9 EV= -1 2/3 60 degree angle

[Keiffer]

#10 EV= -1 1/3 45 degree angle

[Keiffer]

#11 EV=0 45 degree angle

[Keiffer]

And there you have it.

[goatee]

Wow - thanks for taking the time and effort to do that keiffer! I for one, am surprised by the consistency of the ETTL results. I take it these are straight out of the camera, with no 'exposure compensation'?

[Keiffer]

No prob Goatee, So was I, I heard they were very inconsistant, but I didn't see anything to make me swing either way. Yes these are straight out of the cam, no processing besides resize. One other thing I just noticed, None of the pics that I shoot with the flash attached have any exif info, What's up with that?

[Keiffer]

Oh also, Don't know if it matters but all those shots were shot in Manual.

[tim]

Would you mind giving us your conclusion as well as the raw data?

[Keiffer]

Tim my conclusion so far is that they're both pretty consistant, Today or this weekend I will shoot some outside daytime shots and see how it does at that and than I will give my conclusion. What Raw data would you like? I shot these in jpg, Has anyone else noticed that there is no Meta data while using this flash?

[goatee]

I shoot RAW, and always get exif info.

It could play a part that you were shooting in Manual. Also, I have an M3 shoe - I really don't understand 100% the difference between the difference shoes.

[Keiffer]

Goatee, What mode do you normally shoot in?

[tim]

Tim my conclusion so far is that they're both pretty consistant, Today or this weekend I will shoot some outside daytime shots and see how it does at that and than I will give my conclusion. What Raw data would you like? I shot these in jpg, Has anyone else noticed that there is no Meta data while using this flash?

I'm lazy, just post your conclusions, that'll be fine for me :)

[Keiffer]

Ok Lazy Tim :-) Here's my conclusion. ETTL works more consistant than Auto. Consistant in Color balance and white balance. When on Auto, beige things look white while in ETTL they're the right color.

[tim]

Handy, ta :)

[goatee]

I either shoot M or Av, and shoot RAW, so I don't care about white balance.

Goatee, What mode do you normally shoot in?

[tim]

I either shoot M or Av, and shoot RAW, so I don't care about white balance.

You will when you have 1000 photos to process all with verying light sources.

[goatee]

I won't, because the colour light produced is consistent - it's just the way the camera sets WB - I batch process in RSP, so I'll set the WB in the first one, and then do the rest automatically. (though if I have thousands, I'll need a couple more computers to speed things up!)

You will when you have 1000 photos to process all with verying light sources.

[woodsie]

Had a chance for a bit more of a play on the weekend with the 20D (still the M2 adaptor at this stage :cry:). But shooting raw, the EXIF works fine on the 20D.

[René Damkot]

I won't, because the colour light produced is consistent - it's just the way the camera sets WB - I batch process in RSP, so I'll set the WB in the first one, and then do the rest automatically.

So you're assuming that the camera gives the same autoWB in daylight on, say, a soccerfield as in a nightclub under tungsten? If I were you, I'll test it before you need it .... :rolleyes:

[goatee]

No I'm not, I'm saying I don't give two hoots what the camera sets Auto WB to, since I shoot RAW and set WB in RSP- if I take 1000 shots in a wedding hall, then once I've set the white balance for one, I can use it for the other shots. If I was shooting JPG, then yes, it would be a pain in the butt, but I'm not and RSP lets me fix that easily.

In fact I've had very few shots where the auto WB is the optimum colour temperature.

So you're assuming that the camera gives the same autoWB in daylight on, say, a soccerfield as in a nightclub under tungsten? If I were you, I'll test it before you need it .... :rolleyes:

[René Damkot]

Sorry for the late reply, been out for a while...
I understand you can apply the same WB to all pics, but then lighting circumstances should be the same for all thos pics, wouldn't they. If a few were taken under tungsten, and others under Fluorescent and still others in daylight, they would need different WB, right?

[goatee]

That;s ok :) You're right, circumstances do change, but I'll go through, work out which ones should have the same WB, and apply WB to them all, and then make any other tweaks I want. I've found it to work pretty well - in RSE and RSP it lets you select which corrections you want to copy and paste to a rang e of images, so it's not a problem if you want to share some settings, and not others.


Sorry for the late reply, been out for a while...
I understand you can apply the same WB to all pics, but then lighting circumstances should be the same for all thos pics, wouldn't they. If a few were taken under tungsten, and others under Fluorescent and still others in daylight, they would need different WB, right?

[woodsie]

My M3 foot for my 54 MZ-4 finally arrived so I've had a chance for a bit of a play with E-TTL. With just a bit of mucking around in my room I noticed the E-TTL over exposure that people have been complaining about.

It was late afternoon, so there was just enough light for experimentation with fill flash, and that seemed to work ok, but I didn't have enough time before it got dark to suss it out properly.

But once it got dark, E-TTL was horribly overexposed by 1-2EV compared to auto. I then noticed that I had my mecabounce diffusor on, which is pretty much fixed permanently on the flash head. So I tried E-TTL with bare bulb. The exposure came straight back in line with what auto mode was giving me. I played with various bounce angles and they worked fine. But as soon as I put the mecabounce back on it started overexposing again.

I also tried with my lumiquest, flash mounted reflector, and got the overexposure again. This one confused me, as all this does is reflect the flash, exactly the same as bounce flash. So I started playing with bouncing the flash off a white peice of card. I found the closer I brought the card to the flash, the more the E-TTL overexposed the shot.

I current feeling is that under different conditions where the flash is hitting the subject indirectly, the weaker pre-flash behaves differently to the strong main flash. I would guess that Canon engineers did intensive testing of direct flash and regular bounce flash and adjusted their algorithms to handle this. But I think that as canon don't make diffusors or on flash reflectors for their flashes, these are all aftermarket, they didn't test these and didn't adjust the E-TTL algorithm to compensate.

I think that my tests with fill flash behaved better as the main flash is a lot weaker on a well lit subject, and behaves more like the weak pre-flash.

But this is all just guesswork on my part, and would need a Canon engineer to come out of the woodwork to see if I was even close.

I will play around with it a bit more over the coming days. But my current thoughts are:
- At night time, use the Metz in auto mode, and set the camera in manual mode, setting the apeture to control depth of field and setting the shutter to control the impact of ambient light.
- In daylight, if I have time use the Metz in auto mode and manually set the exposure on the camera for the ambient light. If I am shooting more quickly and require the convenience of using Av or Tv mode (P seems to lock on 1/60s and f4 in E-TTL mode) then I will us E-TTL. But I want to do more experimentation before I trust it.
- I will also need to use E-TTL if I wanted to make use of HSS with this flash as HSS is not supported in any other mode.

I havn't got any shots to show you as I took hundreds of shots trying to find a pattern, and I was mainly looking at the histogram rather than the shot to get a more accurate comparison. I am also a bit tight on time and have already spent way too much of it playing around with this. ;)

[goatee]

Ah - thanks for the useful info Woodsie!It's really reassuring to hear that there is some reasoning as to why ETTL is causing so many problems for so many people - and I guess it does kind of make sense.

[woodsie]

Although I think it is fantastic that Canon are putting so much R&D into trying to produce the best flash system possible with E-TTL, I am very disappointed that they don't admit that it is really still an experimental system, then publish the conditions that it is known to work in, and then provide us with the option of selecting straight TTL for the situations where E-TTL doesn't perform as well.

But then, where would be the fun in photography if everything just worked perfectly all the time, and we didn't get a chance to experiment and play and make those rare but beautiful mistakes that turn into our masterpieces.

[woodsie]

Completely off topic, but while I think about it, here are a couple of those mistakes where bad, drunken flash technique produced a very cool effect. The shots fail completely on technical merit, but I really like the subversive mood they produce.

http://woodsie.smugmug.com/photos/45215314-M.jpg

http://Woodsie.smugmug.com/photos/45215324-M.jpg

Oh, and the successful focus was pure fluke. I was using MF, couldn't see a thing and the AF system didn't stand a chance. :mrgreen:

[Wilt]

Woodsie,
Please keep us informed as new information and conclusions come in. If you can at all try to mimic a small softbox over the MZ54, rather than using reflector devices, that would be greatly appreciated.
While I have gotten communication from Bogen about M3 foot, I still have not yet purchased the MZ54. I own two 45CL units which I use for weddings and I love to use with my Bronica ETRSi (and also with my Olympus OM-4) for ultra-predictable and reliable TTL flash control. My ETRSi with 45CL is a godsend for shooting weddings with both flash a main source or as synchro-sun fill source.
The Metz 45CL works wonderfully with my Canon 20D when used in Auto, but I cannot also use my micro Apollo softbox over it with the 20D because a) 20D does not have TTL control and b) softbox blocks the 45CL light sensor used for Auto; and c) 45CL is not ETTL compatible I really hesitate to buy the MZ54 until I know that ETTL-II works as predictably with my micro softbox over the flash unit connected via 3102 M3 to my
20D. Since using the MZ54 on Auto gets me nothing over using the 45CL on Auto, it is throwing money away!

[Jon]

Although I think it is fantastic that Canon are putting so much R&D into trying to produce the best flash system possible with E-TTL, I am very disappointed that they don't admit that it is really still an experimental system, then publish the conditions that it is known to work in, and then provide us with the option of selecting straight TTL for the situations where E-TTL doesn't perform as well.

But then, where would be the fun in photography if everything just worked perfectly all the time, and we didn't get a chance to experiment and play and make those rare but beautiful mistakes that turn into our masterpieces.
Let me get this straight. You're using a Metz Mecablitz with Metz' E-TTL foot and you're upset with Canon because E-TTL with the Metz gives you overexposure? Might Metz bear just a little responsibility there? After all, they're responsible for reading and applying the signals that Canon passes on. As the generally-reported behaviour with Canon Speedlite EXes is a slight underexposure. And you can be sure that Canon engineers didn't have a Metz to test with. However the Metz engineers certainly must have had a Canon camera to test with, and should have been aware of the problem themselves.

[woodsie]

You are correct Jon, and my first reaction was to blame Metz for the problem. But then I thought that all the E-TTL is doing is giving an on off signal, if the fault was with the flash then it would always overexpose, irrespective of what happened to the light after it left the flash.

But I did some more testing this morning (in a small dark room, less than ideal test conditions) and worked this out.
- The diffusor does not seem to affect the exposure on the on-board flash.

- The first couple of exposures with the Metz where all over exposed, even with bare flash. After that the behaviour became more consistent again.

- The on flash exposure compensation works in E-TTL mode, so obviously the E-TTL communication is more sophisticated than I first thought, as the flash does have some control over the exposure.

So I was blaming Canon because my understanding of TTL flash control was that the camera did all the calculations. But I think I just proved myself wrong and E-TTL is much more complicated than that.

This is making my head hurt now... :confused:

[woodsie]

Just happened to have a Stofen OmniBounce and a LiteDome Q39 mini softbox (12"x16"). So I thought that seeing as I had played with my other diffusors, I should have a go with these.

Ok, the quick and simple one. The OmniBounce produced similar results to the mecabounce. I didn't test it in detail as I can't see it being dramatically different. Although the effect was reduced a little, it was still virtually unuseable without doing lots of exposure compensation. Easier to use auto in my opinion.

The soft box also showed a tendancy towards over exposure. But nowhere near as pronounced and very consistent. I found that if I adjusted the exposure compensation on the flash by 2/3EV - 1EV I was getting pretty nice exposures. This seems to match up with my experimentations last night with the reflector, where the bad effect of the diffusor is reduced as it gets further from the flash. The LiteDome screen sits 8" away from the flash head.

Wilt - My testing here is pretty hapazard, so I wouldn't be forking out money on the not too bad results I got with my softbox. I bought my softbox for use with a slave flash, so none of these issues will be of concern to me. I did some fairly impractical wiring to test E-TTL with the softbox on a tripod. I would imagine that an on-camera softbox would be even smaller than the one that I have, and would therefore probably perfom noticeably worse. On the other hand there are a lot of on-camera micro softboxes available specifically designed to not cover the flash sensor. I think that this would be worth looking at irrespective of what brand of flash you buy. Some reviews of Canon's top end flashes also say that in some conditions auto mode produces better results than E-TTL.

Anyway, I should get onto the things that I'm suposed to be doing at the moment. I hope that my playing has added further to the collective knowledge of the bizzare and unpredictable beast that is E-TTL and how Metz flashes attempt, often unsuccessfully, to tame this beast. I'm still happy to use Metz flashes as their performance in auto mode more than justifies their existance. :-D

[goatee]

I don't think they fail on technical merit - maybe the compositions aren't perfect, but I think they're really cool though!

Completely off topic, but while I think about it, here are a couple of those mistakes where bad, drunken flash technique produced a very cool effect. The shots fail completely on technical merit, but I really like the subversive mood they produce.

Oh, and the successful focus was pure fluke. I was using MF, couldn't see a thing and the AF system didn't stand a chance. :mrgreen:

[Wilt]

Thanks for that additional testing, Woodsie, greatly appreciated. Was your camera in Manual when you ran your tests?
My impression from your statement about 2/3 - 1 EV exposure compensation is that ETTL-II thru the 3102 M3 to the Metz 54MZ is about as effective and predicable as the Canon flashes (55EX, 580EX, etc) ...if you put camera into Manual and ETTL on the flash, you need to dial in 1 EV (and as much as 1 2/3 EV) is you are using the flash for main source of light. What puzzles me is why the Canon flashes need +1 eV or more of exposure compensation to overcome the fundamental UNDERexposure problem that is so common a complaint (including my own), yet you are seeing OVERexposure unless it is compensated?!?!
Once again it reinforces the fact that Canon engineers may have designed a good fill flash system when the camera is in Av (if you ignore the fact that the camera in Av mode can/will choose a horribly slow shutter speed for handheld shot in trying to set the background to be exposed suitably), but their design of a main flash system frankly sucks smelly eggs!

[woodsie]

Yep, I had the camera on manual. When I am using the flash as the main light source I always use manual as the exposure is controlled by the flash, and I have run into the same problems with Av as you have.

Thanks goatee, yeah I was so stoked when they came out so well. But yes, I need to work on my composition skills when it is too dark to see through the viewfinder and I am too drunk to stand straight. ;)

But then I always said that if you can't do your job (hobbie) after a few drinks, you are working beyond your level of competence. ;) (Oh, unless you drive or operate heavy machinery of course. :shock:

On a related topic, I also had a play with a second flash and the SCA 3083 slave foot. First impressions.

The Metz TTL wireless: I doubt they could have made it any more useless if they tried. It doesn't work at all with E-TTL. In auto mode I found it underexposed badly, didn't try and work out if I was doing anything wrong because I then found that when using the wireless TTL function you can't do any exposure compensation on either the master or the slave so you end up with no control over the lighting at all.

The optical function the SCA 3083 is quite good as it can handle multiple flashes when using systems like E-TTL. The slave flash can be set on either auto or manual, giving complete control. My only complaint is that the slave sensor is small and tucked away, so some lighting arrangements don't work. But the sensor is quite sensitive and the Metz flashes have enough rotation on them that I can point the head at the subject and the sensor at the light source and everything works.

But then again, for half the money you can probably buy a generic hotshoe mount optical slave that will work just as well and let you put any brand of flash on it.

[goatee]

That's really disappointing how crippled the wireless shooting is. I'd be inclined to just get a cheap old Vivitar, and a cheapo optical slave shoe, rather than spend the money on Metz. I was stoked at the possibility of proper wireless shooting with them - not that I have a need for that right now, but it's really good to know that the possibility is there.

I expected more of Metz than to give such a crummy solution - they induce so much confidence in the quality of the MZ-3, and the SCA shoe system, and then have a half arsed wireless shooting solution - a real shame!

[tim]

But then I always said that if you can't do your job (hobbie) after a few drinks, you are working beyond your level of competence. ;) (Oh, unless you drive or operate heavy machinery of course. :shock:

I was going to reply to this, but I started a new thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=944115) instead :)

[Wilt]

>>That's really disappointing how crippled the wireless shooting is...I expected more of Metz than to give such a crummy solution <<

Hey, all, don't forget that the Canon wireless system (in fact the entire flash system) is held closely to Canon's vest and other companies have to reverse engineer everything to create a compatible system. Also, don't forget that Metz' wireless capability was entirely and separately designed, it was not specifically designed to be compatible with Canon only...after all, there ARE other camera manufacturers in the world! So give them a break and consider what their wireless system does when used in an entirely Metz system, not something designed to work with the often criticized ETTL of Canon!

[goatee]

That's true Wilt, but looking at what woodsie (who has been really positive about his MZ-4) had to say
In auto mode I found it underexposed badly, didn't try and work out if I was doing anything wrong because I then found that when using the wireless TTL function you can't do any exposure compensation on either the master or the slave so you end up with no control over the lighting at all.

I don't mind it doesn't work with ETTL - I don't even use it, I use the flash on auto, but the fact that on auto it doens't work, and you can't use FEC at all, is what I'm annoyed about - this will be true with whatever make of camera you use it on.

[woodsie]

That's true Wilt, but looking at what woodsie (who has been really positive about his MZ-4) had to say


I don't mind it doesn't work with ETTL - I don't even use it, I use the flash on auto, but the fact that on auto it doens't work, and you can't use FEC at all, is what I'm annoyed about - this will be true with whatever make of camera you use it on.
Actually, I did work out what I was doing wrong. Too many late nights play with flashes and I had the apeture set too small for the power of the flash and distance of the flash. :o:o:o

Did some more stuff tonight, actually taking some real shots, and setting the master on auto and the slave on TTL, the wireless worked fine. My bad :o but I'm feeling happier with the wireless TTL now. :):)

Still with I could do some more in the way of exposure compensation for controlling overall exposure and balance between the flashes. But I can get some coarse control over the flash balance by using different diffusors and pointing the flashes in different directions. But I'd rather be able to hit a button and set it more precisely.

I'm keeping as positive a slant on my attitude to these flashes as I already own the gear and feel that I have to learn how to make the most out of what I have. If I wanted perfect lighting control then I would spend thousands of dollars on a proper studio setup. I also gather from what others have said that every on camera flash system has its limitations, and whateve system you invest in you must learn those limitations and work out how best to use them, or spend thousands of dollars on a proper studio system. :)

Hmmmmmm, did somebody say spend thousands of dollars on a proper studio system? :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[goatee]

Ah fair enough Woodsie - we've already seen you're not afraid of shooting drunk, so I guess I shouldn't have been quite so quick to accept your word as gospel. My faith has once more been regained by Metz :)

What happens when you try and set exposure compensation on the master (or slave even for that matter)?

[woodsie]

Ok, on the Metz 54 the bottom right hand corner of the screen where you normally set EV is replaced by the Ad1 or Ad2. If you try and turn the dial down to where the EV is usually set, then the little pointer won't move down into that area. :(:(

Oh, I should mention for completeness that I am not running this with two 54s, I have a 54 MZ-4 as the master and an old 40 MZ-2 as the slave. I am using the 54 as the master as the 40 doesn't talk as well with the 20D. But the 40 and the 54 work exactly the same in slave mode, though the 40 is obviously less powerfull.

[goatee]

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. But aside from anything else, it's good to know I could pick up an old secondhand Metz gun as long as it's an SCA one, and it should work fine. The winklight is so good though - because it means I could have the master off camera, bouncing, with the winklight enabled, and then another flash bouncing off a wall the other side - would get light from everywhere :)

[Keiffer]

Woodsie, Can you use the 54 as a slave and the have the onboard flash set it off?

[woodsie]

Yes Keiffer you can. The SCA 3083 slave adapter is an optical slave aswell as wireless TTL, and behaves correctly with the E-TTL double flash. But I would only buy the SCA 3083 if you specifically want the wireless functionality. There are plenty of other optical slaves out there which will trigger any brand of hotshoe flash. A lot of them also support triggering with a PC cord.

Just make sure that whatever optical slave you buy, if you are going to trigger it from the onboard flash it must be able to handle the double flash of the E-TTL.

[Keiffer]

OK, So what do I need to just fire my Metz off camera? Like if I want to just mount the flash with on a monopod with an umbrella and either use no flash on cam or just the on board.

[Wilt]

>> So what do I need to just fire my Metz off camera? <<

A radio remote (like Pocket Wizard or Quantum) or an IR remote (like Wein). Don't know if Metz offers something specific to working with its wireless.

[stk]

Sorry for the late reply, I stumbled upon this thread only now ;)

- At night time, use the Metz in auto mode, and set the camera in manual mode, setting the apeture to control depth of field and setting the shutter to control the impact of ambient light.
- In daylight, if I have time use the Metz in auto mode and manually set the exposure on the camera for the ambient light. If I am shooting more quickly and require the convenience of using Av or Tv mode (P seems to lock on 1/60s and f4 in E-TTL mode) then I will us E-TTL. But I want to do more experimentation before I trust it.
- I will also need to use E-TTL if I wanted to make use of HSS with this flash as HSS is not supported in any other mode.

I second this 100%. Most of my work is done indoors in clubs and bars, and ETTL has always seriously disappointed me. Since I like to shoot in manual mode anyway, having the 54 MZ-3 in Auto mode does wonders to picture quality. Exposure is pretty consistent most of the time, ec works reproducably, and it's about the only choice when using a reflector anyway. ETTL works okay in daylight situations using Av or even P mode, but for low light there's barely anything better than M/A.

To the last post: I'm using a sync cable from the camera to a sync-hotshoe-adapter (total cost: 20 EUR). Apparently it is also possible to use the SCA 301 adapter instead, which has a standard 3.5mm stereo jack already built in. And I've ordered a photo slave cell to revive my trusted old 45 CT-1 as well - who needs Alien Bees? ;)

[SkipD]

Now this series is ETTL ISO 100 all with shutter speed of 1/10 except #6 which was 1/6. No white card on any of these.
#6 EV=0 60 degree angleWhy the heck did you use such slow shutter speeds? The ambient light is overpowering the flash.

[René Damkot]

Fun how opinions can differ: I think it's actually quite well balanced: look at the background. It's fill flash after all... The only problem is the color cast, and the fact that too much ambient is hitting the models left side (right for viewers) side of the face causing motion blur. If there was no motion blur, I'ld say: No problem.

[Wilt]

>>I took my foot off only to find there's no sticker on it stating whether it's a M1,2 or 3. <<

Actually M3 units are marked on the side, "(logo) SCA 3102 (newline) M3 Made in Germany"!

[goatee]

(Unless they're an older foot that's been reprogrammed as an M3)

[vegebyte]

Hello! I've just bought an MZ4 for my 20D and found this thread immensely useful. Thanks to all who have posted! :D I've a little snippet of info to add.

Ok, on the Metz 54 the bottom right hand corner of the screen where you normally set EV is replaced by the Ad1 or Ad2. If you try and turn the dial down to where the EV is usually set, then the little pointer won't move down into that area. :(:(
I was pretty disappointed to hear that, so I carried out some tests. Thankfully, EV compensation set in the regular Auto mode is honoured when you swap over to Co (slave master) mode. Having to switch modes to change EV is a hassle, but I'm very relieved to find that it's still possible. :)

[Wilt]

Just to add more information about the 54MZ...I bought a 54MZ4 for myself, and it came with the M3 module. I ran a series of tests at home before ever trying it 'for real', and I found that the Metz implementation of ETTL does result in same accuracy of exposure as Auto, so that I can shoot and not have to dial in flash exposure compensation 1EV like with Canon flash. That's the good news, now the bad news... The Metz ETTL does NOT use the in-camera metering to gauge the flash output, but uses a sensor in the head of the flash. That means that in ETTL mode you cannot use the 54MZ with a small softbox over the flash head, you HAVE TO use Auto mode if you wish to use the softbox and worry about not blocking the sensor when you do. And ETTL is hardly 'thru the lens'...makes you wonder why Metz could not simply use the original sensor location (even with appropriate circuit modifications to do 'ETTL') rather than put a second sensor in the head?!?!?!