Quantary Q383 / Sunpack 383 Super\"

[bnpndxtr]

Does anyone around here use these with the 10D? These are non-ETTL auto exposure models. I'm considering getting one of these.

[robertwgross]

You might want to explain your reasoning, since this flash does not do E-TTL, which is the primary flash mode on the camera.

---Bob Gross---

[bnpndxtr]

It is simply that I don't need E-TTL to make me happy, as I've used the other kind all my life. The auto exposure thyristor model I already have is not a Canon-shoe compatable.

I've read that Canon ETTL is not necessarily all that great a performer. And IMO Canon wants to charge more for a flash than it's worth. So I'm inlined to look elswhere.

I know there are some potential trigger voltage issues (I've seen the link everyone references), but I'm intereted to learn if people really use this model with the 10D, and whether or not they like it.

Thanks,

Brian

[Jahfakin]

I'm in the same boat as you. I seriously doubt i'll purchase the 550ex since the E-TTL system is not that great. most people I know use the Metz 54 MZ-3 flash. you set the flash to "auto" and put your camera in manual. The flash will take care of the the exposure for you, and does a better job than the E-TTL, from what i've heard. I'm looking into getting it. It's around the same price as the 550EX.

[scottbergerphoto]

I use the Quantum Q flash T2D in Auto Mode and ETTL. I've gotten good results from both. I like having the Auto Mode because I can use the same flash with my Nikon film equipment. It also eliminates the pre flash problem when using small Morris slaves to lighten up a room.
Scott

[justme_dc]

Go for the sunpak! I have a 550EX that loathes to give me a correct exposure. One day out of frustration I dug out my old sunpak 444D and set it to one of the auto aperature settings, set the camera on AV and started shooting. Indoors, Outdoors, shade, backlighting and fill flash this old flash shot circles around the canon flash that cost almost three times more. This Auto-thyrister flash work great on my 10D and 1D. The 550EX is gonna end up in the classified ads.

[bnpndxtr]

Thanks guys. Does anyone have any similar comments regarding the Vivitar 285HV? I'm torn between the 285HV and the Q383 / 383 Super. One possible negative thing about the 383 I could argue is that it has no zoom head and is optimized for a 35 mm lens. Comments- pro, con, other?

Brian

[justme_dc]

The 285HV has *DEADLY* high sync voltage (if I remember right mine was up over 100volts, could have been higher. It's been a while.) so take that into account. Other than that I really liked my 285HVs. I had a pair of them that worked like champs. I sold them when canon came out with the first pro level A-TTL flash in 1989, the old 430EZ. A-TTL and TTL work far more reliably than E-TTL in my experience. It's a shame that the new Canon cameras don't support it.

So, yeah I'd say other than voltage issues both of those flash units are good.

[bnpndxtr]

The 285HV has a 12V trigger voltage according to Vivitar customer service I got a reply from today. I still don't know whether this really matters. It is hard to imagine the firing circuit in the 10D would be designed to be hurt by this, since among "low voltage" flashes this is not an unreasonable voltage. Canon has no warning in their manual except that a high voltage flash "might not fire". There is no mention of damage, etc, so what gives I wonder? I imagine they have some kind of open collector drive or something. Surely it's not really a "6 V transistor". Egad, if so, what a crappy design.

[Andy_T]

bnpndxtr wrote:
Egad, if so, what a crappy design.

Maybe so. However, this argument just might not do the trick when you send you $ 1500 camera in for warranty repair...

Have fun,
Andy

[bnpndxtr]

My point is that with a $1500 camera, one would expect design margin. I design electronics, and it just seems odd that a camera designer would design a hotshoe interface that was mechanically compatible with most anything, but that would also get damaged by most anything. It might be true, but if so it's a booby trap design and doesn't serve the customer very well. If the camera will be damaged by 12V, then why doesn't the Canon documentation say more than "might not fire"? I mean, yeah if it gets blown out.....it might not fire.....

[bnpndxtr]

OK guys, I just got off the phone with Canon. For the record they told me that the trigger voltage must be limted to 6V.

I accept this as definitive, but I'm flabbergasted nonetheless. Why didn't they create a different hot shoe so that people can't stick a garden variety "dangerous" 12V flash on it?

[robertwgross]

I'm not sure that you understand Canon.

They recommend Canon Speedlites. Period.

As long as you use a Canon Speedlite, then you have no compatibility problem with a Canon EOS like this.

Of course we know that there are lots of non-Canon flash units out there. Some of them are compatible and some are not. Canon is not going to promote how you can use a non-Canon flash. They really want you to buy Canon. So, by restricting the compatibility on the camera end (by having a low voltage spec), they will scare half of the consumers into Canon-only, and they will intice the other half by other methods like fancy features.

If a user puts on an old Vivitar flash (like mine, 170 volts) and if it burns up something on the Canon camera, then it is no sweat off Canon's brow. They will probably score a hefty repair fee and then score the price of a Canon Speedlite.

---Bob Gross---

[bnpndxtr]

robertwgross wrote:
I'm not sure that you understand Canon.

They recommend Canon Speedlites. Period.

As long as you use a Canon Speedlite, then you have no compatibility problem with a Canon EOS like this.

Yes, I “understand Canon”. They are in business to make money. So what. They also need to serve the customer. Well I also understand, via the 10D user’s manual, that the only thing that is supposed to happen with a “dangerous 12V flash” (chuckle) is that is might not fire. That is not the same thing as “blows out the I/F”.

Of course we know that there are lots of non-Canon flash units out there. Some of them are compatible and some are not. Canon is not going to promote how you can use a non-Canon flash.

But to ethically serve the customer they are obliged to comment about the potential for damage if they choose to use a hotshoe design that anyone’s flash will slide onto. So rather than just saying something about the DANGER in their own documentation, they are relying on a largely incompetent sales force spread throughout the chain camera stores of the world to convey this critical information?? That’s goofy. But it’s worse than that. If they do it on purpose, then they are unethical.

They really want you to buy Canon. So, by restricting the compatibility on the camera end (by having a low voltage spec), they will scare half of the consumers into Canon-only, and they will intice the other half by other methods like fancy features.

Yes I understand they want me to buy Canon. So what? That has nothing to do with their ethical obligation to warn the customer about potential damage because they use a hotshoe form factor that is shared with “dangerous” flashes.

If a user puts on an old Vivitar flash (like mine, 170 volts) and if it burns up something on the Canon camera, then it is no sweat off Canon's brow. They will probably score a hefty repair fee and then score the price of a Canon Speedlite.

Yes, and this coupled with the benign wording of the user’s manual constitutes a booby trap design, just as I mentioned. Any company that views customer damage, to which they purposely contribute in terms of misleading the customer, as a source of income is unethical. Good camera or not, that practice is a disservice to the customer. But since they don’t say that damage can occur in their documentation, then I don’t see how they could “void your warrantee” over it. But anyway I'm not sure you understand the repair side of these electronics company businesses. Electronics companies typically consider repair departments as overhead rather than sources of income. If they could completely eliminate them, they’d do it. So I’m not sure what the verdict is on Canon’s intentions, but they need to change their official guidance. It does not serve the customer.

Brian

[scottbergerphoto]

Would'nt slipping a Wein Safe Sync in the hot shoe, before the non-Canon flash make this point moot?
Scott

[bnpndxtr]

Soctt,

Yep, and I'll be doing that now if I don't go with a Sigma clone or somehting now. I was just venting a bit about what I though was a crummy practice.

I'll shut up about it now. Thanks for everyone's input.

Brian.

[robertwgross]

bnpndxtr wrote:
...
But anyway I'm not sure you understand the repair side of these electronics company businesses. Electronics companies typically consider repair departments as overhead rather than sources of income. If they could completely eliminate them, they?d do it. So I?m not sure what the verdict is on Canon?s intentions, but they need to change their official guidance. It does not serve the customer.


Quite the contrary. I spent 28 years in the business, so I understand it very well (obviously I started when I was only a tiny child). Many companies run their repair department as a profit center instead of as an overhead cost.

Canon's intentions begin with its recommendations to use a Canon flash and it ends with it serving the Canon shareholders.

---Bob Gross---

[bnpndxtr]

Quite the contrary. I spent 28 years in the business, so I understand it very well (obviously I started when I was only a tiny child). Many companies run their repair department as a profit center instead of as an overhead cost.

Canon's intentions begin with its recommendations to use a Canon flash and it ends with it serving the Canon shareholders.

---Bob Gross---


(OK, not shuttin up just yet) Well, I guess I'm putting my experience against yours then, Bob. Any repair rate for a company that pokes above the noise floor is black eye for a company, not an "asset".

I talk with venture capitalists that are considering funding high tech entrepreneurial companies I do business with in my design work. They are very interested in quality and low defect rate, not whether they utilize their repair departments as a profit center. In fact doing the latter would more likely be considered a red flag. So my experience as well as my general opinion is in disagreement with you.

But not to get petty about it, I imagine there are some companies that do this, but I disagree with you about it's prevalence as an integral part of a business model. It certainly won’t fly if you don’t own the market, which Canon does not in general. There are arguably fine alternatives to Canon.