Yongnuo YN-622C Controller Trigger

YN-622N

CliveyBoy wrote in post #15615320
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....

Clive,

I have just done a test between a YN568 and a 580ex, each flash used solely off-camera, no on-camera flash, just the YN622 controlling the flash. My test was for exposure control, and any differences between the two model flashes. What I found was the zoom setting for the flash will vary results greatly, for either flash. The YN568, when set to 'auto' or manual zoom settings gave me different results, and using the built-in WA diffuser was different still. Same with the 580ex. In all cases, with the conditions of my test, the most consistent and effective results seem to be with having the built in WA diffuser down, so that the flash covered the widest spread possible.

I need to test the 580exII as well, to see if it acts any differently. And I need to do the tests in different environmental conditions to see if there is any consistency that I can figure out. However, after shooting many tests, so far I've come to the conclusion that it's best to use manual power settings if at all possible, between all the various combinations of different flash zoom settings, and how each flash model reacts differently to the different combinations available, this eTTL off-camera flash stuff is for the birds. It will drive you nuts. You simply can't predict how it will work, and the only way to use it is to chimp and adjust. By the time you do all that, you could use the flashes in manual power mode with more reliability.

iituner wrote in post #15636239
YN-622N

Um... why do they have a Canon hotshoe on top, if they're for Nikon?

inkista wrote in post #15637475
Um... why do they have a Canon hotshoe on top, if they're for Nikon?

It's probably a poor mockup, using a new plate or top on the 622C! It does mean that at the least, a new faceplate has been printed!

It's confusing, and the image should be ditched.

Robert Welch wrote in post #15637338
I have just done a test between a YN568 and a 580ex, each flash used solely off-camera, no on-camera flash, just the YN622 controlling the flash. My test was for exposure control, and any differences between the two model flashes. What I found was the zoom setting for the flash will vary results greatly, for either flash.
...
I've come to the conclusion that it's best to use manual power settings if at all possible, between all the various combinations of different flash zoom settings, and how each flash model reacts differently to the different combinations available, this eTTL off-camera flash stuff is for the birds. It will drive you nuts. You simply can't predict how it will work.

Hi, Robert:

1. What was your subject/model? Much of the camera’s E-TTL processing is the identifying of the subject, and evaluating the lighting on it/him/her. It suppresses reflecting areas in the background. Lighting a bare, flat wall will always produce erratic results as it is outside the design parameters. E-TTL is not for lighting plain walls!

2. Of course the zoom produces different results – that is why it is there. It provides the photographer with a means to either get greatest intensity of lighting by zooming in, or greatest coverage at a lower intensity when zoomed out. It is best to consider the zoom as a light modifier, especially for off-camera lighting.

3. E-TTL is for the birds, and other moving subjects, where the lighting can change by the millisecond.

4. When one has studied texts on how E-TTL works, you can predict that you will get usable exposures every time. Including pre-setting FEC as wedding photog’s do regularly. (White subject = counterbalance camera’s attempt to make it mid grey.)

5. Remember, regardless of flash power and concentration, or number of flashes, or distance, or angle to lens axis, or flash zoom, or head orientation, what the camera measures is the actual light reflected by the subject and entering the lens. It evaluates by many zones, and even excludes some zones from the evaluation. Not even a light meter can do that.

6. E-TTL tests have to be constructed to eliminate variations in many factors.

Clive,

I was using a neutral Photovision white/grey/black reflector, which was propped up against a neutral smokey backdrop. I was using an 85mm lens, with the reflector almost filling the frame. It's about as consistent and perfectly neutral a test subject as possible. The reason for this target is it gives me 3 spikes on the histogram which show me how accurate the exposure is, easily indicating if exposure is off even by 1/3rd stop. I was back about 18 feet from the subject, the off-camera flash was 7ft from the subject. I was unable to see the flash from my shooting position as it was blocked from view by an object, thus keeping any light fall-off from the flash affecting exposure.

I pretty well understand eTTL, been using Canon flashes since it was aTTL, and transitioned to eTTL with the EOS 3 camera, and digital in 2003 with the 20D. I'm a full time professional, this is my 13th year as such, so lot of experience.

Anyway, what I'm seeing is results will vary according to which flash you use (Canon or Yongnou) and how what the zoom setting is, which with the off-camera flash will certainly be something to be aware of as in may or may not be desirable for it to match the actual focal length of the lens in use, since it may not be at the same distance as your shooting position in relation to the subject. Within the limited confines of my test, what I determined was the setup that produced the most accurate exposure from any flash (including the 580exII, which I did do a quick test with) was with the WA diffuser down. Now this could be because of the proximity to the target, which is why I said all the variable must be considered, thus making it so that each and every time you use this configuration, you will have to re-evaluate the setup according to the conditions most likely. I did find it curious that in certain setups, the Yongnou and Canon flashes will react differently, almost in opposite ways, depending on how the flash zoom is configured, in one way the Yongnou will tend to overexpose while the Canon tends to underexpose (which is a tendency I've always found that Canon flashes tend to do, thus I typically add 1/3-2/3rd FEC), while in another configuration, specifically with the WA diffuser down, the Yongnous tend to underexpose just slightly, while the Canon flashes give a more accurate or even slight over-exposure. Anyway, the reason I say it's nuts is that in a fast action situation, like weddings (which is what I'm normally shooting), keeping all this straight will be a struggle.

Here was my test target, you can see this should produce very accurate and repeatable results. Used evaluative metering mode, BTW.

Robert Welch wrote in post #15637848
Here was my test target, you can see this should produce very accurate and repeatable results. Used evaluative metering mode, BTW.

That is a nice target. Mine is a Lastolight Ezybalance - mid grey with an AF white centred cross. However, I also have and actual subject - a plastic head. This ensures that the camera can determine which of the zones (61 on the 5DIII) contain the subject, on which it bases its calculations.

With just the target, which of the zones contains the subject? The AF illuminates this determination by providing distance data (if available).

Evaluative metering is the one to use, otherwise, no zones, just a single flat rectangle. Flash reflections, etc are included in Average; suppressed in Evaluative. Evaluative works on a background vs subject principle.

Do you take into account NEVEC and its relationship with M, Av and Tv modes? It certainly reduces "normal" exposure if it thinks it is dealing with fill light.

I realise that you are a well-experienced professional. Not all readers are, and I keep that in mind when posting.

Clive,

I'll admit I don't know about the NEVEC, I'll look into that and learn more. I shot these tests in a rather dark ambient light room--a couple of 60w bulbs--at ISO 100, 1/125-f/4 in manual mode, so there was no compensating for any ambient light, all effective light for the exposure came from the flash. This was intentional, I was strictly looking to evaluate the flash operational performance on a relative basis.

The main thing I was testing here wasn't whether the flashes produced accurate exposures, but under what situations they would change performance, and how the Canon & Yongnou flashes would differ under the same conditions. What I found was they do differ, depending on the conditions they could differ significantly. What I also seemed to observe, under these test conditions, was that the most accurate configuration for eTTL seemed to be with the WA diffuser down. This was an important find for me at the moment, as I have a wedding this weekend and plan to use this equipment for the first time. I've done as much testing as I can at the moment, so wish me luck from here.

Robert - I wish you well; with your approach you don't need too much luck.

I agree with your main thrust a few posts back. You must be able to rely on consistent behaviour. What puzzles me is that the camera should be reasonable consistent in its calculations, regardless of what the flashes do - providing the demand does not exceed max. output.

Subscribing to this thread, I just got myself a pair of these tiggers last week. They work very well.

Xcelx wrote in post #15639267
Subscribing to this thread, I just got myself a pair of these tiggers last week. They work very well.

They do. I do have a fairly consistent minor issue in ETTL when shooting where temporarily the flash output dies then comes back with a much larger pop before settling down again.

So say I'm shooting in Manual with ETTL, and the flash is outputting 1/16th. I'll shoot for a while, then the flash might not pop for a few exposures, then will come back with a 1/2nd over-bright pop, before going back to the expected 1/16th output for subsequent shots.

I haven't narrowed down what's going on, whether it's trigger related, battery related, recycle time related, ETTL measurement related or so on. I've never had this with manual triggers (same flash) and I don't think it happens with manual flash power using the 622's. Just something that I've noticed happens from time to time in shooting ETTL with the 622s and my 580EXII.

Haven't really had time to investigate (and as it's an intermittent issue, it's quite hard to look into).

Oh now that you mentioned it, I actually noticed that, one shot was severly overexposed coupled with a black image. I don't remember which one happened first. Good thing it doesn't seem to happen very often, it's only happened in one picture so far. That was with a 5D2 and YN568. Doesn't bother me.

Xcelx wrote in post #15639267
Subscribing to this thread, I just got myself a pair of these tiggers last week. They work very well.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

talbot_sunbeam wrote in post #15639297
They do. I do have a fairly consistent minor issue in ETTL when shooting where temporarily the flash output dies then comes back with a much larger pop before settling down again.

That sounds like intermittent breaks in contacts on one or more osd the 5 pins. Cleaning both hotshoe and hotfoot fittings can help. The problem often qoes away as regular use polishes off oils, etc. (Keep your hands of the flash foot!)

Simple triggers usually do not use the data flows on the minor pins, so the problem does not appear. Proper insertion and clamping are essential.