Yongnuo YN-622C Controller Trigger

inkista wrote in post #15613697
...with my 5DMkII and my 580EX, Works great all the way up to 1/8000s (with the expected gradients). But with my YN-560, no such luck: black bars on any speed above 1/200s.

However, on my 50D, the YN-560's supersync works without any issues all the way up to max. shutter speed (1/8000s).

inkista wrote in post #15613852
With 622 connected to the 580EX hotshoe, HSS was fine on the 5Dii.

but I basically just moved the Tx unit from one camera to the other. The connection between the YN-560 and the Rx unit was unchanged. That's why I'm puzzled.

5Dii + HSS + 622 ~> 622 + 580EX - HSS works correctly.
50D + HSS + 622 ~> 622 + cable + YN560 - supersync works as expected.
5Dii + HSS + 622 ~> 622 + cable + YN560 - 1CS only.

So, we know that the HSS/pre-shutter signal is moving correctly from camera to remote 622.

Known causes: camera not in HSS; non-HSS mounted on remote 622 hotshoe; faulty connection between remote 622 and non-mounted flash.

I use an adapter shoe that goes from PC-sync port to the Fire pin of the mounted flash, rather than an internal mod. (I've removed mine from my 550EXs.)

It is possible that during testing, the output IGBT for the PC-sync port has blown. Swap 622s and test again.

CliveyBoy wrote in post #15614177
5Dii + HSS + 622 ~> 622 + 580EX - HSS works correctly.
50D + HSS + 622 ~> 622 + cable + YN560 - supersync works as expected.
5Dii + HSS + 622 ~> 622 + cable + YN560 - 1CS only.

Yup. Only 50D was tested last.

Not the case here, but appreciate the pointers.

Which would make sense, only it then went on to work with the 50D without a change made to that connection.

It is possible that during testing, the output IGBT for the PC-sync port has blown. Swap 622s and test again.

Cool. I'll give that a try. All in all, though, if I can't get it to work, I'm not going to be heartbroken. Supersync with the YN-560 was a nice gracenote feature, but not something I was counting on. And if I have to have it, I can always use the 50D.

CliveyBoy wrote in post #15600944
Make sure you read the latest version!

The 5DIII and 7D have the full flash control menus also. The 7D ones are old-style and take two pages, unlike the 6D quick flash control panel. With all of them, you need to turn one Wireless (optical) to be presented with the Firing Group items.

Use Remote mode (not Mix mode) and leave the on-flash settings alone, at least until you have mastered the standard procedures. (OldVultureFace has covered the on-flash setting for FEC.)

Q. #2 is answered in TOYUG. 580EX works normally in E-TTL - with FEC, ratios, etc controlled from camera. The 580EXII works fully in E_TTL, with full control from the camera.

i think that you are mixing settings, and getting erratic behaviour from dirty contacts.

Your added post - the camera menus set either ETTL or Manual in remote mode. Either/or. They can be different in Mix mode, but that makes the camera settings largely ineffective.

You really do need to do your homework and learn how the 622s actually work, and then see how various configurations can be achieved.

Thank you for all your help, Clive. I've read your PDF completely and have done a good amount of testing how the system works, feel like I have a handle on things.

Not sure about the dirty contacts, I have several 580ex flashes and they all seem to work the same. I just think I was trying to do something that isn't compatible with the 622 system (using the 580ex in eTTL, trying to adjust FEC on flash while the off camera YN568 flashes are set to manual mode, it seems I need to be in mix mode for this to work the way I'm thinking it will). Anyway, that is all fine, I know how to use mix mode and find it very useful.

I have had one other anomaly, if I use the YN568 flash on-camera on the 622 in eTTL mode, with another flash off-camera, if I try to adjust the FEC on the flash menu below zero, it consistently over exposes (the opposite of what it should be doing). It seems to work ok if I add exposure with the flash FEC control, or with no FEC adjustment, but not when I do negative FEC adjustment. I've confirmed this is consistent with both of my YN568 flashes, and seems to act the same way with whichever camera I use (7D, 6D or 5Dmk3). If I use the ratios and set the off camera flash to B group, I can do the ratio control from the camera and it works fine. Also, if I put a 580ex or 580exII on-camera, it works fine using the FEC control on the flash menu, just not when using the YN568.

I haven't tried this with just the YN568 on the camera, no 622, to see if it's the flash itself, but in that situation I would use the FEC control on the camera, not the flash anyway. None if this is a major problem, I don't really need to use the YN568 on-camera, I bought them to use off-camera. And using the on-flash FEC control isn't necessary, I just find it's a little quicker to adjust that way, rather than scrolling though the camera menu and changing settings that way, it's more of a shortcut route for me, I like being able to work really fast sometimes. I mostly do wedding photography, and speed is very desirable in that situation.

Robert Welch wrote in post #15614628
I have had one other anomaly, if I use the YN568 flash on-camera on the 622 in eTTL mode, with another flash off-camera, if I try to adjust the FEC on the flash menu below zero, it consistently over exposes (the opposite of what it should be doing). It seems to work ok if I add exposure with the flash FEC control, or with no FEC adjustment, but not when I do negative FEC adjustment. I've confirmed this is consistent with both of my YN568 flashes, and seems to act the same way with whichever camera I use (7D, 6D or 5Dmk3). If I use the ratios and set the off camera flash to B group, I can do the ratio control from the camera and it works fine. Also, if I put a 580ex or 580exII on-camera, it works fine using the FEC control on the flash menu, just not when using the YN568.

I haven't tried this with just the YN568 on the camera, no 622, to see if it's the flash itself, but in that situation I would use the FEC control on the camera, not the flash anyway. None if this is a major problem, I don't really need to use the YN568 on-camera, I bought them to use off-camera. And using the on-flash FEC control isn't necessary, I just find it's a little quicker to adjust that way, rather than scrolling though the camera menu and changing settings that way, it's more of a shortcut route for me, I like being able to work really fast sometimes. I mostly do wedding photography, and speed is very desirable in that situation.

Thanks again, Robert, for the report.

I have put my YN568EX aside for now, at least for E-TTL work. Using A:B ratios with the 568 in one group and 580EX II in the other, the 568 was consistently over-exposing. Substituting a 550EC restored expected exposures. The exposure pre-flash by group assumes a base-line 1/32 power level from flashes. It is as if the 568's 1/32 level is incorrectly set, and the flash emits a lower power. This would result in consistent over-exposures.

So, now I will have your FEC tests to add to the list. Using all Canon flashes, I confirmed that the A:B ratio with one flash set to an on-flash FEC modified the ratio as expected. Must try with the 568.

I suspect that both problem behaviours may be related.

I need to have a number of flash units working simultaneously for extreme macro/micro work, but at reduced power because of minimal working distances.

If I buy a Yongnuo YN 622C, and 3 cheap low power flash heads , I could probably do what I want, but cheap flash heads don't come with variable output, although these do have slave facility.

My question is, can the YN 622C vary the output on individual flashes? Common sense tells me probably not, as all it is doing is telling the flash to 'fire' and would have no control over the power output, which is a function of the flash itself.

Please tell me I have no innate common sense, and that "Of course it will work"

Sharnbrook,

The 622 will be able to control the output level of certain flashes. It can control any eTTL flash, in eTTL mode. It can also control certain flashes in manual mode, allowing you to set the manual power level from the camera. Compatible flashes that work in this way include the Canon 580exII, 430exII and the Yongnou YN565 & 568 flashes. There may be some other brand flashes as well, those are the ones I'm aware of. To do this, you can set flashes into 3 different groups, A, B & C, and each group can have a different power level setting.

Hope this helps.

Thanks Robert for your comments. I realise that sophisticated flash units can be controlled via the YN622, but 3 units @ $150+ea, is a lot more than 3 @ $12.50, and it was being able to control the cheap units that I hoped would work.

CliveyBoy wrote in post #15615320
Using A:B ratios with the 568 in one group and 580EX II in the other, the 568 was consistently over-exposing. Substituting a 550EC restored expected exposures. The exposure pre-flash by group assumes a base-line 1/32 power level from flashes. It is as if the 568's 1/32 level is incorrectly set, and the flash emits a lower power. This would result in consistent over-exposures.

Does this also happen with the 568 on-cam without the 622? Likewise, when off-cam (through canon wireless)? Although this should be in the 568ex thread, I thought of asking here for continuity.

tnis0612 wrote in post #15582982
I'm not sure if this is even possible, but i'm using 3 tranceivers; 2 on each camera hotshoe with flash on top of each and one off camera on a light stand. My wife and I want to both be able to trigger the off camera flash at a wedding reception but the only way I can figure out how to do it is if we both ALSO trigger each other's flashes.

I tried messing with the group settings and channel settings but I cant figure out how we can each trigger the off camera flash but not each others flash. Is this something simple i'm missing or can it not be done? Thanks!

I have just got these triggers and reading the excellent alternative guide it struck me that this could be possible.

1) the flash on the camera unit always operates in group A
2) The group button on this (the transmitter) sets the group the flash will be triggered in from another transmitter.

What I have done is to set both cameras to fire A:B only and set the off-camera flash 622 to group B.

Then I set BOTH 622's on the camera's manually to be in group C.

On the camera that fires the flah on top fires as group A, and the other on camera flash does not fire as group C

I have tried this and it seems to work. I hope this is of help.

bonzl wrote in post #15618698
It struck me that this could be possible.
1) the flash on the camera unit always operates in group A
2) The group button on this (the transmitter) sets the group the flash will be triggered in from another transmitter.

What I have done is to set both cameras to fire A:B only and set the off-camera flash 622 to group B. Then I set BOTH 622's on the camera's manually to be in group C.

On the camera that fires the flah on top fires as group A, and the other on camera flash does not fire as group C. I have tried this and it seems to work. I hope this is of help.

Thanks, bonzl. I expect that when I test it, I will confirm that you are right.

Damn. I tried several configurations without success, but didn't think of this one. And it is such a logical conclusion, too.

Summary:
Camera 1 set to E-TTL firing group A:B and some ratio, + 622 set to Gp.C + on-top flash.
Camera 2 ditto.
Enhancing flash stand + 622 set to Gp.B + flash.
Either camera takes shot, it's on-top flash is treated as Gp.A, stand as Gp.B, and other camera as Gp.C which is not enabled in A:B, so does not fire.

tnis0612 wrote in post #15582982
I'm not sure if this is even possible, but i'm using 3 tranceivers; 2 on each camera hotshoe with flash on top of each and one off camera on a light stand. My wife and I want to both be able to trigger the off camera flash at a wedding reception but the only way I can figure out how to do it is if we both ALSO trigger each other's flashes.

We now have an answer, thanks to bonzl. See our posts above.

Sharnbrook wrote in post #15615358
I need to have a number of flash units working simultaneously for extreme macro/micro work, but at reduced power because of minimal working distances........ but cheap flash heads don't come with variable output, although the ones I'm considering do have slave facility.

Has anyone any experience of using masks over a flash-head to reduce the flash intensity? If a piece of black card had a grid cut into it on a chess board layout, so that the illumination was evenly balanced, would a 50% cut-out give a 50% reduction in light intensity, and 33% cut-out give a 67% reduction, 10% 90% etc, or would it give rise to unwanted patterns arising?

Not difficult to do an experiment I know, but if someone has been there, done that, there is little point repeating the process.

Shambrook - this would be better asked in a fresh thread; you would have a bigger audience, I suspect.

Sharnbrook wrote in post #15626539
Has anyone any experience of using masks over a flash-head to reduce the flash intensity? If a piece of black card had a grid cut into it on a chess board layout, so that the illumination was evenly balanced, would a 50% cut-out give a 50% reduction in light intensity, and 33% cut-out give a 67% reduction, 10% 90% etc, or would it give rise to unwanted patterns arising?

Not difficult to do an experiment I know, but if someone has been there, done that, there is little point repeating the process.

Mike: Until you start this in a new thread (or the Mods move it), try this for size:
It IS possible to get a projected pattern from anything over the flash head depending on what exactly it is and the zoom setting/distance-to-subject. I've done it inadvertently with a honeycomb grid by setting the zoom wrongly (can't honestly remember which end of the range) and got a nicely mottled effect which was not what I wanted at all.

You could take the other approach and buy one sheet of Lee #211 ND0.9 (ie 3 f/stop) filter foil (cost you £3.40 UK but with a horrible £12.50 postage charge). Then you'd be able to cut multiple ND filters to put over your individual flash heads to cut the power. You'd still be using the same amount of battery power but cutting the output by 3 f/stops. Alternatives are Lee #209 (1 f/stop) and Lee #210 (2 f/stops). That'd be a cheap way of doing it - well, it'd be cheap with Aus. sourced filter foils. Rosco make similar gels (3402 - 1 f/stop; 3403 - 2 f/stops; 3404 - 3 f/stops). All depends which you can source within Australia. Filter foils/gels are cheap enough, it's avoiding International postage which will really save you money.

Not complex fastening them over the flash - use a rubber band! (The reason for the foil shape is equally simple. Rotate the foil by 90° and it fits under a homemade Stofen-clone based grid without chewing the foil to bits. I just roll the rubber band [think aeromodelling shop - £1.99 for 10 inc UK postage]) to the back of the flash head out of the way.

MODS: Yes, do please move this post along with Sharnbrook's original query if deemed appropriate.

Now back to the YN-622C thread!

CliveyBoy wrote in post #15628399
Shambrook - this would be better asked in a fresh thread; you would have a bigger audience, I suspect.

Originally posted by Whortleberry
MODS: Yes, do please move this post along with Sharnbrook's original query if deemed appropriate.

Excellent point made there about a more appropriate location, but thanks Whortleberry for your comments. There is a company here in Brisbane that sells every filter known to mankind for Theatrical Productions, and they will have what I want.

You won't see me in this thread again...............