Auto Thyristor shootout: 580EX II vs Nikon SB-24 vs Canon 199A

I was thrilled when the 580EX II came out with it's new Auto sensor. I'm an off camera flash junkie and thought this would make life easier. Well, it was terrible, inconsistent, and just performed poorly in Auto mode. (Manual External Metering, according to the manual) I thought it was so bad I returned it for another one... and it performed equally sucky.

As time went on I heard more and more complaints about the 580EX II doing poorly on auto mode. So I finally decided to try and test them (rather unscientifically). I admit this isn't a complete nor thorough test, it is mainly geared towards the situations I personally shoot in. It was done for my own purposes, but thought it might be somewhat informative for others.

The gear used:
30D body
EF-S 17-55 lens.
PW multimax units
lightstand and tripod
remote trigger cord for PW


The subjects being tested:
From left to right: new Canon Speedlite 580EX II, old Nikon Speedlight SB-24, 20-some year old Canon Speedlite 199A.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Thanks for this test. I agree re:580EX II suckage. It's not consistent enough to make it useful. It's a good E-TTL flash though. What I find sad is that ANY auto-thyristor outperforms the 580EX II. I have a circa 1981 $55 (ebay) Sunpak 5600 that may overexpose but it's consistent enough that I can dial in a higher ISO and be good to go. My $80 (brand new) Sunpak 383 is spot on pretty much all the time (unless something wacky confuses it).

BTW you're a cute little boy, Weenie. No ugly mug in sight.

We've been down this road before:

https://photography-on-the.net …ighlight=thyris​tor&page=3


https://photography-on-the.net …ighlight=thyris​tor&page=5

I'm quite happy with my thyristor setting. Although I prefer ETTL.

Although the 580EX II pictures seem a little on the underexposed side, I also find those of the other flashes on the overexposed side. But if I had to pick which I prefer among the three, I would select the ones shot with the 580EX II (except for the one of the two white arm chairs by the window).

PacAce wrote in post #4632522
Although the 580EX II pictures seem a little on the underexposed side, I also find those of the other flashes on the overexposed side. But if I had to pick which I prefer among the three, I would select the ones shot with the 580EX II (except for the one of the two white arm chairs by the window).

To my eyes the light is harsh, but not overexposed. The 580EX II is just straight up underexposed. I'm sure Lloyd shoots in similar situations as I do - where ISO1600 is normal and ISO100 a luxury - often enough that boosting exposure would be ugly. I can recover those little highlights in Lightroom with no ill effects.

cosworth I recall that thread. it was mostly about ettl though... I'm not interested in ettl as I'm quite happy with it's performance.

My main gripe about the 580II is that it exposes UNPREDICTABLY. The SB-24 and 199A are consistent in their exposures, so I can easily close down the aperture 1/3 stop if need be. But I've tried countless times to open up the aperture or raise the ISO to make up for the 580 II, but it's always a moving target. That is the frustrating part.

cdifoto wrote in post #4632314
...What I find sad is that ANY auto-thyristor outperforms the 580EX II...

yes, I agree with this. I've been using autoflashes for about 20 years, and never have I had a problem or frustrations with them until I used the 580II.

I personal think I would prefer to be under exposed as in the 580 then over exposed and flash burn in the other two Auto thyristors. W/ underexpose at least it can be saved but w/ flash burn the detail is just gone and unrecoverable. Changing the camera's sync speed would probably can help.

I didn't post that to praise ETTL. I posted it to show that auto exposed a lot better than these tests results show.

cosworth wrote in post #4632765
I didn't post that to praise ETTL. I posted it to show that auto exposed a lot better than these tests results show.

Maybe for you, but not for me. Apparently not for Lloyd either.

So maybe we should determine why.

lostdoggy wrote in post #4632753
I personal think I would prefer to be under exposed as in the 580 then over exposed and flash burn in the other two Auto thyristors. W/ underexpose at least it can be saved but w/ flash burn the detail is just gone and unrecoverable. Changing the camera's sync speed would probably can help.

again, as mentioned above, the main issue is that the 580II is UNPREDICTABLE. The SB-24 and 199A ARE predictable and settings can easily be changed to prevent overexposure. I've been trying to get consistency from the 580II from the day it was released and it's been an exercise in frustration.

cosworth wrote in post #4632791
So maybe we should determine why.

Send me your camera and I'll test my flash on it. My wife and I have two 580EX II units and they both perform about the same way, and very similar to Lloyd's shots, using a 20D and 30D.

My Sunpak 383 lists the sensor's angle of view in the instruction manual, so at least I can estimate what it's metering on. There is no such documentation on the 580EX II so we're left to guess how wide the metering area is. Thanks a lot, Canon. The percieved inconsistency of the 580EX II may be simply due to a narrower metering area, but we have no way of knowing.

I find that the 580EX II seems to underexpose about 2 1/3 stops on average. I haven't found it to be any less consistent than my Sunpak 383, but I only use the external flash metering in certain conditions where I think it's well suited (generally indoors with a relatively close background).

But I do use it in that mode. Life without a pre-flash means I don't get so many blinks and I can use optical slaves. I set the camera ISO at 400, the flash ISO at 80, and match the apertures. That accounts for Canon's pathetic calibration and I can shoot with relative confidence.

List your 580 flash settings. What custom functions have you enabled/disabled?