Disgusted by speedlites

Seems like most photographers sing the praises of speedlites, so what am I missing? I've never used a speedlite and been satisfied by its performance. In my experience:

- the quality of light is about the same as a $5 flash light
- not enough power to be useful
- horrid recycle times
- overheating issues
- questionable "portability"
- questionable cost / benefit ratio

So what's the draw? Does it just boil down to "different strokes"?

No, it just boils down to you and your knowledge of how to use one. It's always disconcerting to me when some folks bash a tool and blame on it rather than themselves.

It seems like you dont really know how to use one. There are limitations, but they are capable of great things. I have a set of alien bees, and a speedlite set and I use each when the situation is appropriate. There are things one cannot do that the other can.

It all depends on if you know how to use it correctly.

If you shoot at full power all the time (which I RARELY do), of course it's going to have slow recycle times, over heat, etc. If you're just going to put it on your camera and point it straight at someone that's leaning against a wall, of course you'll have harsh lighting with harsh shadows.

LostArk wrote in post #15986732
Seems like most photographers sing the praises of speedlites, so what am I missing? I've never used a speedlite and been satisfied by its performance. In my experience:

- the quality of light is about the same as a $5 flash light
- not enough power to be useful
- horrid recycle times
- overheating issues
- questionable "portability"
- questionable cost / benefit ratio

So what's the draw? Does it just boil down to "different strokes"?

Yes, the quality of light is the same as a flashlight if using it as direct flash.

Yes, there is not enough power if you try overpower the sun with your flash.

Yes, the flash will overheat and have slowed recycled times if you use it at full power for long bursts.

Yes, flash is not portable if you try to stuff it into your pocket.

And yes, it has low cost to benefit ratio if you buy a $500 Canon Speedlite but don't use all the features or power.

So when I qualify your assertions about flash, you are entirely correct.

Lostark you need to read the manual, make sure of your settings and practice. Nobody can just slap a flash on the camera and expect instant results.

LostArk wrote in post #15986732
Does it just boil down to "different strokes"?

Nope. It boils down to understanding the limitation of the tool, working with those limitations, and then learning to use it properly.

It's just like anything else in life, let alone photography. If you don't understand it then it won't be working for you, you'll get extremely frustrated, and the results will suck! Learn to use the tool properly, don't blame the tool for you're inability to use it. There are a lot of pros that can get amazing results from little speedlights. But it requires knowladge and practice.

frugivore wrote in post #15986978
Yes, the quality of light is the same as a flashlight if using it as direct flash.

Yes, there is not enough power if you try overpower the sun with your flash.

Yes, the flash will overheat and have slowed recycled times if you use it at full power for long bursts.

Yes, flash is not portable if you try to stuff it into your pocket.

And yes, it has low cost to benefit ratio if you buy a $500 Canon Speedlite but don't use all the features or power.

So when I qualify your assertions about flash, you are entirely correct.

LOL, love it!

LostArk wrote in post #15986732
Seems like most photographers sing the praises of speedlites, so what am I missing? I've never used a speedlite and been satisfied by its performance. In my experience:

- the quality of light is about the same as a $5 flash light
- not enough power to be useful
- horrid recycle times
- overheating issues
- questionable "portability"
- questionable cost / benefit ratio

So what's the draw? Does it just boil down to "different strokes"?

Troll or not?

LostArk wrote in post #15986732
Seems like most photographers sing the praises of speedlites, so what am I missing? I've never used a speedlite and been satisfied by its performance. In my experience:

- the quality of light is about the same as a $5 flash light
- not enough power to be useful
- horrid recycle times
- overheating issues
- questionable "portability"
- questionable cost / benefit ratio

So what's the draw? Does it just boil down to "different strokes"?

I checked your flickr. You know how to light. Stop trolling.

LostArk wrote in post #15986732
Seems like most photographers sing the praises of speedlites, so what am I missing? I've never used a speedlite and been satisfied by its performance. In my experience:

- the quality of light is about the same as a $5 flash light
- not enough power to be useful
- horrid recycle times
- overheating issues
- questionable "portability"
- questionable cost / benefit ratio

I think you're pretty much correct on a lot of points.

It needs to have a fan to stop overheating and they quite expensive. I never felt a need for the flash to talk to the camera and was happy shooting vivitars when I need "compact" and studio lights when I want to mount it on a stand.

Which flashes do you prefer?

If people spend 400 bucks on flashlight, it's hard to be objective.

**getting the popcorn ready**

cdifoto wrote in post #15987099
I checked your flickr. You know how to light. Stop trolling.

Which points is he trolling on? Besides "horrid recycle times", I think he has valid concerns.

OT: Doc, you need to add "could have" and "could of" to your signature, and variants thereof. Drives me absolutely crazy.

Scrumhalf wrote in post #15987154
OT: Doc, you need to add "could have" and "could of" to your signature, and variants thereof. Drives me absolutely crazy.

Done

EDIT: It won't allow me to make the sig any longer. We'd have to throw out some of stuff to fit it in.