Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Metz or Olympus?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

ChrisV
ChrisV  7822 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
10 Oct 2013 - 6:12 PM

I'm buying a Flash to team [principally] with an EM-1. I'm considering a Metz 58AF-2 rather than the Olympus FL600.

The Metz is marginally more expensive, but it is more powerful and better built. It appears to be wireless compatible too and can be upgraded via USB. I think it also has the option of an external power-pack. I can't however find any guide to their respective recycle times - I want something that will respond quickly and continuously and my hunch is that the Metz would be the winner in that regard. Anyone got any experience/advice? Is there any compelling reason I'm not thinking of to stick with the Olympus [or the Panasonic equivalent which is more or less identical by the looks]?

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
10 Oct 2013 - 6:12 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315626 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
10 Oct 2013 - 8:55 PM

I guess ideally your going to be using it off camera via wireless or lead.

In the case get the largest most powerful unit you can afford, the metz are good but I have not compared them against my FL50R units.

I would avoid the Panasonic units, you will be paying more for what is basically the same units as Olympus.

Helpful Post! This post was flagged as helpful
ChrisV
ChrisV  7822 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
24 Oct 2013 - 5:12 PM

I got the Metz 58AF-2. Works wirelessly and also has a secondary reflector for additional fill-flash - I also picked up an old FL36R dirt cheap. So I've got a pair that will work as slaves off-camera. Both recycle much faster than the old Polaroid unit I had, which was hit and miss. I've played around with both [just messing] and used the Metz today for a press release job. So far very happy, but I haven't done anything particularly demanding as yet.

StrayCat
StrayCat e2 Member 1014928 forum postsStrayCat vcard Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
24 Oct 2013 - 6:22 PM

I have a couple of fl36 units that I use attached with a coiled cable, it works.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315626 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
24 Oct 2013 - 7:38 PM

Chris I also believe that unit also includes an optical slave, very handy.

ChrisV
ChrisV  7822 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
25 Oct 2013 - 10:31 AM

Yes it does, Paul (I think the R stands for remote, but I may be wrong)- I've fiddled with the settings of both and considering I only paid 80 [second hand] for the FL36, I'm very pleased with its capabilities. It's also of course a lot smaller than the Metz, which is good if I really want to travel light.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315626 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
25 Oct 2013 - 8:33 PM

With my FL50R`s I have two slave modes( auto and manual) and then there are the wireless modes.

I have on FL36 but its of the Older generation so no wireless control.

ChrisV
ChrisV  7822 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
6 Jan 2014 - 4:00 PM

Supplementary question time.

I've done a bit of studying and a bit of messing around and am starting to get better results using both units wirelessly and TTL. Both can be set as slaves in either metered or manual mode. I was kidding myself that wireless was radio - but it does appear to be IR and needs a good line of sight [perhaps where I was going wrong previously].

Now I've also managed to get the RAW converter for my Mac/Aperture programme, so naturally shooting RAW. So here's the question - loading the RAW files shot with flash, if there are no humans in the frame, the shot looks fine. As soon as there are human beings in the picture, the red and blue channels bunch to the right of the histogram, leaving me with a massive magenta cast. This doesn't appear to happen without flash and it also doesn't happen with the JPEG files. Is there a bug in the Apple RAW converter or is anyone else encountering this strange problem with other RAW converters?

Last Modified By ChrisV at 6 Jan 2014 - 4:04 PM
Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315626 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
6 Jan 2014 - 8:16 PM

Have you compared your raw software to say LR Chris.

I use my own profiles but even the default in LR are not that bad.

Not sure what could be causing your colour cast, bounced flash perhaps.

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 6 Jan 2014 - 8:17 PM
Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315626 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
6 Jan 2014 - 11:57 PM


Quote: I've done a bit of studying and a bit of messing around and am starting to get better results using both units wirelessly and TTL. Both can be set as slaves in either metered or manual mode. I was kidding myself that wireless was radio - but it does appear to be IR and needs a good line of sight [perhaps where I was going wrong previously]

Yes the R simply means remote and not wireless remote Smile

On occasions you might be able to get away with units not being positioned in line of sight if you have a few reflective surfaces, but I find it better to carry a cheap set of Chinese triggers just in case.

ChrisV
ChrisV  7822 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
7 Jan 2014 - 1:37 AM


Quote: Have you compared your raw software to say LR Chris.

I use my own profiles but even the default in LR are not that bad.

Not sure what could be causing your colour cast, bounced flash perhaps.

Adobe p*ss me right off. I have the last version of LR and PShop CS6 - the new version of the RAW plugin only works with current versions (which means my version of PS being the last non-subscription version is permanently locked out of updates for RAW compatibility. I have however downloaded their latest DNG converter and it looks like this is some sort of bug or flaw in the Aperture profile for RAW. It's really weird though - as I say it only appears to be shifting the colour violently with flash and human subjects (the face in some occupying less than 5% of the frame. I'll report this to Apple.

I already have some cheap radio triggers (I've used them with strobes). I'll have a mess about when I have more time.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315626 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
7 Jan 2014 - 4:14 AM


Quote: Adobe p*ss me right off

Same here, Adobe stopped supporting Xp with version 4 of LR, so I ended up building a new PC, cheaper than buying off the shelf, I then went CC.

I`m not that familiar with Aperture so can`t help you with that.

ChrisV
ChrisV  7822 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
7 Jan 2014 - 12:46 PM

CC? Isn't that costing you a fortune? Mind you I'm part of a larger team, which you would think would be a saving - but Adobe actually charge more for groups [I suppose their logic is that's more likely to be higher-income generation and so easier to extort]. I don't think we'd move until it becomes absolutely necessary and in the meantime their model may well fail.

It's a shame - Adobe used to be one of my favourite tech companies many years ago. Once the original founders retired and the bean-counters took over it became increasingly obvious their primary passion was for profit and everything else has suffered and declined since. They've become arrogant with their near monopoly on professional graphics software. They're due a fall.

As for Aperture it's good software - now a lot less expensive than LR [although Adobe have dropped the price a bit to compete] - but it is slow and resource hungry and it really is overdue a major update.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315626 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
7 Jan 2014 - 7:12 PM


Quote: CC? Isn't that costing you a fortune? Mind you I'm part of a larger team, which you would think would be a saving - but Adobe actually charge more for groups [I suppose their logic is that's more likely to be higher-income generation and so easier to extort]. I don't think we'd move until it becomes absolutely necessary and in the meantime their model may well fail

I got Photoshop and LR for 8.78 a month, over a 5 year period it works out cheaper than keeping packaged software up to date, and for the price of a coffee a week I`m not complaining Smile


Quote: As for Aperture it's good software - now a lot less expensive than LR [although Adobe have dropped the price a bit to compete]

Yes Adobe have halved the price of LR,

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 7 Jan 2014 - 7:13 PM
ChrisV
ChrisV  7822 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
8 Jan 2014 - 11:30 AM

Yeah, I see LR is now around 100 - Aperture is 54.99 from the App store [when I first bought v2 around six or seven years ago it was 130-odd with an education discount]. It's had minor updates, but it must be a good three or four years since v3 was released. Users are getting a bit impatient with its lack of development. I actually have LR 4 on my machine - It covers more or less the same ground as Aperture, but the interface is very different and I'm so used to the Apple App and have such a large library, I've never got around to migrating or seriously comparing the two.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.