busy......slow flash?

tim wrote in post #5507685
Get a used 580EX or 550EX and a Canon CP-E3 or CP-E4 battery pack. It'll recharge near enough to instantly, so long as you use ISO400 to 800 - and there's no good reason not to. A full charge is 2-3 seconds, but lots of full power flashes and you'll burn out the flash head. The 430EX would be a good cheaper solution, it doesn't take a battery pack but it'll still recharge a lot quicker than your built in camera flash.

i want to avoid carrying a battery back around. i know you dont need a battery pack to use the 580ex, i just want to add that in.

thanks.

shutterfiend wrote in post #5507691
This is probably not true. However, your camera might allow you to use settings that require greater flash output and hence longer recycle times. Ordinary point and shoot might limit flash output for better recycle time.

yeah, i dont know how true it is, i am just going off of what i saw.

when i get home i can post the picture specs, but i was on full auto when i was shooting, so i would assume that the camera would pic the best settings, however, i could be wrong.

Just as a reference, I have used a 580ex with normal indoor lighting in continuous burst mode (5fps on my 20D) for 4-5 shots at a time and every one of them were well lit.

tomdlgns wrote in post #5507651
i saw many people taking pic after pic after pic with their tiny point and shoot, while i had to wait 10 seconds for a recycle, at times.

Among the many factors affecting the amount of flash power required for a shot (and hence recycle time) are the camera's aperture and ISO, and the distance from flash to subject.

A P&S camera, in low light conditions, will typically default to something like f/2.8 and ISO 400. This would require only 1/16 as much light as f/5.6 and ISO 100. I'm speculating here, but this could be part of the reason you saw P&S cameras recycling faster than yours.

A hotshoe flash unit will definitely help in the situation you describe, but I think 1,000 shots is too optimistic.

Curtis N wrote in post #5507734
Among the many factors affecting the amount of flash power required for a shot (and hence recycle time) are the camera's aperture and ISO, and the distance from flash to subject.

A P&S camera, in low light conditions, will typically default to something like f/2.8 and ISO 400. This would require only 1/16 as much light as f/5.6 and ISO 100. I'm speculating here, but this could be part of the reason you saw P&S cameras recycling faster than yours.

A hotshoe flash unit will definitely help in the situation you describe, but I think 1,000 shots is too optimistic.

who said anything about 1000 shots? EDIT (i was using 1000 shots in terms of battery life. i also stated that the numbers were not exact, just for an example.)

i see what your saying though, my kit lens can only go as low as f5.6, so i see what you mean there. and the conditions were very, very bad, IMO. very dim and no light at all.

plus, 350 graduates, plus all their friend and family trying to find a spot to take pictures...doesn't give you much time to setup and find well lit areas, especially when everyone is in a hurry, haha.

tomdlgns wrote in post #5507703
when i get home i can post the picture specs, but i was on full auto when i was shooting, so i would assume that the camera would pic the best settings, however, i could be wrong.

You could be wrong. The different modes assume different things which may or may not be helpful depending on what you are doing.

http://photonotes.org/​articles/eos-flash/ always good reading for those learning canon flash.

shutterfiend wrote in post #5507727
Just as a reference, I have used a 580ex with normal indoor lighting in continuous burst mode (5fps on my 20D) for 4-5 shots at a time and every one of them were well lit.

That's only true if you don't need much flash power - high ISO and direct flash, maybe bounced flash if you're lucky.

tim wrote in post #5512016
That's only true if you don't need much flash power - high ISO and direct flash, maybe bounced flash if you're lucky.

Why? Is that a bad thing?

Direct flash isn't a bad thing, it's just one way to light images - generally not a way I use a lot when flash is the main light. Well, never. But direct flash uses less power than bounced flash, that's what I was getting at.