Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Macro Talk
Thread started 24 Aug 2017 (Thursday) 17:15
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Canon MT24EX replacement coming soon

 
racketman
Cream of the Crop
racketman's Avatar
20,654 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Joined Oct 2005
Richmond Surrey
Sep 16, 2017 13:33 as a reply to post 18452056 |  #16

need professional reviews to state the gear is completely useless straight out of the box and give it one star.


Toby
6D, 80D, 100D & Olympus EM-1 MKII
Flickr collections (external link)
Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Dalantech
Goldmember
Dalantech's Avatar
Joined Jul 2006
Bacoli, Italy
Sep 16, 2017 14:18 |  #17

racketman wrote in post #18453671 (external link)
need professional reviews to state the gear is completely useless straight out of the box and give it one star.

Honestly that's pretty much what I tell people about the MT-24EX -the light is brutally harsh. I've invested more time than I care to admit into getting the light quality that I have now.


My Gallery (external link)
My Blog (external link)
Macro Tutorials (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Overread
Goldmember
Overread's Avatar
Joined Mar 2010
Sep 20, 2017 07:47 |  #18

Dalantech wrote in post #18453402 (external link)
Honestly hoping that they don't. I've read too many complaints from Nikon users about the poor cycle time of the R1C1 and how it eats batteries.

The other aspect is weight as its not just the flash, but also the batteries that you've got to then have out in front on the mounting ring. The only bonus of the Nikon is that you can add more slave flashheads to the setup, but otherwise I think cables is the right choice; keeps the bulk of weight at the back over the camera.

Hopefully this new twinflash will have cured the whining noise of the current, although I use a pixel batter pack with mine to improve recharging speed and cut down on the charging whine noise.


Tools of the trade: Canon 400D, Canon 7D, Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS, Canon MPE 65mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro, Tamron 24-70mm f2.4, Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6, Raynox DCR 250, loads of teleconverters and a flashy thingy too
My flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
SteB
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
SteB's Avatar
Joined Oct 2008
Whitchurch, Shropshire, United Kingdom
Sep 27, 2017 04:19 |  #19

WEX photographic have just sent an email with the pre-order price of the Canon MT26EX flash in the UK - £1079!!!!! Making it way more than a Canon 80D. In fact if I got a grey import Canon 6D new, I'd get quite a bit of change. I really do think this is an absurd price for what is essentially just an ordinary electronic flash. As far as I'm aware it just uses old electronic technology which has been around for a long time. It's only the configuration which is unique. To put it into perspective you could buy 8 Yongnuo YN24EX flashes for this price, and I have found the YN24EX just as capable as the MT24EX. In fact out of the box they will give near identical lighting, which is harsh unless you use effective light modification, which isn't commercially available from Canon or anyone else. Canon creates a brand new flash, costing over a grand, but they fail to provide the essential and simple to make plastic light modification, which will vastly improve the light. As I demonstrated with the "cup diffuser" 9 years ago, you can vastly improve the lighting of the MT24EX just by putting part of a cheap white plastic vending machine/water cooler cup on the end of the lens. I bought a pack of about 30 of these cups from my local supermarket the other week for £1, to use as pitfall traps.

I think I understand the pricing strategy. A lot of these flash units will be sold to university labs, hospital and medical photographers, forensic and technical photographers, and usually these places will just pay the going price for the latest kit. You see a similar issue with academic books and scientific journals where the publishers charge absurd prices, in what many scientists have branded as a racket. They do this because they know all university and academic libraries have to buy at least several copies, that they have a monopoly and charge whatever they like. The only reason I am making these points is that there is simply no way these prices can be justified. Electronic flashes use mainly old electronic technology, made of relative cheap components. Unlike a camera or lens they contain no precision mechanical or optical components which cost a lot to manufacture. The plastic housings of camera flash units are cheap and flimsy compared to most camera bodies. Take a look in an electronic spares catalogue and see just how cheap xenon flash tubes, and capacitors of the type used in these flashguns are. What allows manufacturers to charge so much is because they are the only ones who know the technical details of the flash camera interface, and this is what makes it difficult for other manufacturers to make them, themselves. Independent manufacturers of flashguns have to reverse engineer the interface, which is why they often only work with current camera models, and don't tend to work smoothly with future camera bodies not yet on the market.

The reason I find this irksome is that it is just the exploitation of a monopoly. I think cameras and lenses represent excellent value for money. I've been a photographer for nearly 40 years, and today's cameras and lenses have come on in leaps and bounds from the cameras and lenses of the past. However, when it comes to electronic flashes, except for the interface with the camera, LCD screens, they are not that different in functionality than they were 40 years ago. Camera manufacturers have been particularly lazy when it comes to developing flashguns, especially macro flashguns. I could sketch the basic outline of a much, much better macro flashgun in a few days, which would give great light out of the box. Whereas the Canon MT26EX will give similar light and functionality to the very first commercially available macro twin flash, the Olympus T28. I can't find exactly when the T28 was released, but from memory I seem to remember it being released in the 1980s.

Just have a look at the specifications on the link below. It will be seen that in terms of functionality the Olympus T28 from 30 years ago has near identical functionality to the Canon MT26EX. It has roughly the same features when it comes to the swivelling heads. Actually it has slightly higher power output with a guide number of 28 as opposed to 26. It has built in modelling lights, through the lens flash metering (with film TTL was in real time and didn't require a pre-flash). The power pack is in fact lower profile, and it also took a ring flash unit as well as the twin flash. It had power packs and everything. This more than proves my point that the price of the new Canon MT26EX cannot be justified by development costs as it is in terms of functionality a direct copy of a 30 year old design, which performs similarly, with almost identical light output (the 30 year old design was actually more powerful), and light quality. Absolutely no thought has been put into improving the basic design, and it is only the packaging and marketing which has changed.
http://www.alanwood.ne​t ...t28-macro-twin-flash.html (external link)

The point of my rant is why are the manufacturers just so lazy when it comes to developing macro equipment? With other photography equipment, camera bodies, lenses etc, Canon and other manufacturers work with leading photographers, sports photographers, portrait photographers, photo-journalists, and even wildlife photographers to improve and develop their equipment. But with macro equipment they just leave the development to technicians who seem to have little understanding of how macro photographers use this equipment, and what their needs are. As I said in my other comment. Just look at the huge strides macro photographers made in improving the light from the Canon MT24EX with lots of innovative light modification. Yet that seems to have completely gone over the head of Canon, and indeed the other camera manufacturers who are providing the same lazy derivative designs, with the same inherent flaws they had 30 years ago.

I write this not to be negative, but in the hope that someone influential with the manufacturers might actually read this, and think hey, we're not getting this right. I'm not hopeful, because having read Thom Hogan over the years, and he has written the manuals for Nikon cameras for years, Nikon, the same as Canon, live in ivory towers and are often oblivious to the needs of the photographers using their equipment.




LOG IN TO REPLY
JasonC007
Senior Member
Joined Oct 2012
Derbyshire
Sep 27, 2017 04:56 as a reply to SteB's post |  #20

That is just ridiculous, I'd never pay that. And I thought the £600 I paid for the MT24 was expensive! Saying that, WEX are usually more expensive than most so you'd probably get it 100-200 cheaper on Amazon, which is still too expensive!


Canon 80D | 24-105L | 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro | MP-E65 f/2.8 1-5x Macro | Tamron 150-600 | Sigma 10mm Fisheye | EF 24mm f/2.8 Pancake | MT-24EX | 600EX-RT |
Flickr (external link) | Google+ (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Lester Wareham's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
Hampshire, UK
Sep 27, 2017 08:26 |  #21

Canon have been doing this with other flash upgrades.

Not to mention the massive markup on the big telephotos V1 to V2.


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

LOG IN TO REPLY
Overread
Goldmember
Overread's Avatar
Joined Mar 2010
Sep 27, 2017 08:29 |  #22

Launch prices for camera gear are always inflated over the price it settles to in the market before depreciation.
So I expect it to drop to under £1000 in time; but honestly not a drastic amount. It's a huge price hike over everything else; but then again everything we get new has been hiked high over previous releases. The other thing is that the twinflash doesn't even tie into canons new radio control setup which is a huge gap.

As for light modifications, far as I can see Canon/Nikon don't even make any for their regular speedlites beyond a little light holder and about 3 gel inserts. They've either got one of those setups where they "own" a light modification company under another name or they simply don't enter into that market sector at all; which is very strange when you consider how light modification gear is clearly a very lucrative market for marking up products. So its no surprise they don't make anything for the twinflash; they don't make anything for their speedlites either.


Plus I guess that the twinflash market is too small for most regular light modifier companies to bother paying attention too. It's a specialist market that tends to push the prices up because Canon won't expect mass sales of the twinflash at all. Heck universities and the like are unlikely to upgrade at all until older twinflashes break down.


That said even if the price on the new twinflash were competitive it would have to have a lot of new tricks in it to make it worth upgrading; I can't see myself upgrading, but I'm glad its out there as it shows Canon's continuation to support this very niche market. Heck we might even see the MPE updated one day.


Tools of the trade: Canon 400D, Canon 7D, Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS, Canon MPE 65mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro, Tamron 24-70mm f2.4, Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6, Raynox DCR 250, loads of teleconverters and a flashy thingy too
My flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Dalantech
Goldmember
Dalantech's Avatar
Joined Jul 2006
Bacoli, Italy
Sep 28, 2017 01:47 |  #23

Not unusual for the launch price to be high since Canon has to recover the money they spent on research and development. What has stunned me is the current price of the MT-24EX (still about $830 USD at B&H).

I've already pre-ordered the MT26EX RT because I'm not happy with the build quality of the MT-24 or the third party alternatives. Plus I can port the experience that I have diffusing the old twin flash to the new one.


My Gallery (external link)
My Blog (external link)
Macro Tutorials (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
SteB
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
SteB's Avatar
Joined Oct 2008
Whitchurch, Shropshire, United Kingdom
Sep 29, 2017 08:00 as a reply to Dalantech's post |  #24

I can't see the R&D costs for the MT26EX being that high. As I pointed out Canon twinflashes are clearly derived from the Olympus T28 which from memory was first sold in the 1980s, as are all this type of twinflash. However, the similarity of flashguns shouldn't be surprising. It's been suggested reliably that the vast majority of all flashguns from the major camera companies are all manufactured by the same company, which I believes is Panasonic, or owned by Panasonic. This most likely explains how little flashes have changed in construction or appearance over the years. Most "advances" in flashguns have been little changes that are the same throughout most flashguns. As far as I can see the only real design is the plastic housing etc, and the particular configuration of the circuit boards. Electronic flashes in overall performance are not that different 30 years ago. They are less noisy when charging, have a bit fast recycle time at full power, and incorporate a long burn mode for high speed shutter synch, which also first appeared on an Olympus branded flashgun as did TTL flash metering. Camera and lens technology has continued to advance.

The Yongnuo flashguns seem similarly constructed to the Canon flashguns, and I've been using the YN14EX since early 2015 without problem. The only flashgun I've ever had fail on me in 35+ years is the MT24EX. Flashguns I've owned since the 1980s still function. I think it's the design of the MT24EX which caused the problems so many have experienced. I accidentally dropped the original 430EX into the wet mud at the edge of a pond and it was partly submerged before I snatched it out, dried it off for a couple of months, and it still works now.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
Moderator
Lester Wareham's Avatar
Joined Jul 2005
Hampshire, UK
Sep 29, 2017 10:03 |  #25

SteB wrote in post #18462685 (external link)
I can't see the R&D costs for the MT26EX being that high. As I pointed out Canon twinflashes are clearly derived from the Olympus T28 which from memory was first sold in the 1980s, as are all this type of twinflash. However, the similarity of flashguns shouldn't be surprising. It's been suggested reliably that the vast majority of all flashguns from the major camera companies are all manufactured by the same company, which I believes is Panasonic, or owned by Panasonic. This most likely explains how little flashes have changed in construction or appearance over the years. Most "advances" in flashguns have been little changes that are the same throughout most flashguns. As far as I can see the only real design is the plastic housing etc, and the particular configuration of the circuit boards. Electronic flashes in overall performance are not that different 30 years ago. They are less noisy when charging, have a bit fast recycle time at full power, and incorporate a long burn mode for high speed shutter synch, which also first appeared on an Olympus branded flashgun as did TTL flash metering. Camera and lens technology has continued to advance.

The Yongnuo flashguns seem similarly constructed to the Canon flashguns, and I've been using the YN14EX since early 2015 without problem. The only flashgun I've ever had fail on me in 35+ years is the MT24EX. Flashguns I've owned since the 1980s still function. I think it's the design of the MT24EX which caused the problems so many have experienced. I accidentally dropped the original 430EX into the wet mud at the edge of a pond and it was partly submerged before I snatched it out, dried it off for a couple of months, and it still works now.

Probably most of the NRE costs is tool and line rig manufacture, can't imagine the actual design and development costs being very high if no new ASICs need to be developed. I would guess around £5M all up, certainly less than 15M. No ideal what sort of production run they would amortise that over although injection moulding tools etc have a limited lifetime but are only about 100K to remake. So over say 10K units that is only £500. 10K is a ridiculously small run for mass market (anything less that 10 million units is small). So I recon the development costs are small, probably spend more on marketing.


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

LOG IN TO REPLY
Dalantech
Goldmember
Dalantech's Avatar
Joined Jul 2006
Bacoli, Italy
Post has been edited 1 month ago by Dalantech.
Oct 30, 2017 04:52 |  #26

MT-26ex RT Specifications. (external link)

MT-26ex RT Instruction Manual. (external link)


My Gallery (external link)
My Blog (external link)
Macro Tutorials (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,739 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Oct 30, 2017 06:03 |  #27

I don't see the MT-24EX (or 26EX for that matter) as a bunch different than using YN-622TX to fire two 270EX II units. The light will be about the same. I can move 2 270s around a lot more than the heads of either of these macros can be moved. Not seeing the appeal of this thing, even before considering the price.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Dalantech
Goldmember
Dalantech's Avatar
Joined Jul 2006
Bacoli, Italy
Oct 30, 2017 06:06 as a reply to Bassat's post |  #28

I think it depends on your shooting style. I shoot hand held, so the MT-24EX (and now the MT-26EX RT) are easier for me to use than two 270EX's plus another flash or remote to fire them.


My Gallery (external link)
My Blog (external link)
Macro Tutorials (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,739 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Oct 30, 2017 06:10 |  #29

Dalantech wrote in post #18484498 (external link)
I think it depends on your shooting style. I shoot hand held, so the MT-24EX (and now the MT-26EX RT) are easier for me to use than two 270EX's plus another flash or remote to fire them.

Can't argue that. I use an MR-14EX for hand-held. For studio stuff, I use 580EX IIs and 550EXs. Light all over the place!


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
pikeface999
Member
pikeface999's Avatar
82 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Nov 06, 2017 03:19 |  #30

Does anyone know if the heads are the same physical size as the 24s


Jeremy
http://www.pbase.com/j​eremy_broome_smith/roo​texternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

7,155 views & 13 likes for this thread
Canon MT24EX replacement coming soon
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Macro Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00112 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is skylairyip
737 guests, 305 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017