Metz MZ3 - Auto vs ETTL

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.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

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!

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.

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...

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.

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

woodsie wrote:
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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

woodsie wrote:
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.

I was going to reply to this, but I started a new thread instead

>>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!

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

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 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?

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)?

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.