ST-E3 + 2x 600ex-RT VS 3 x 600ex-RT

futureal33

futureal33

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,390
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Morning all,

A bit of a decision to be made on my part, just wondering if anyone in a similar position could offer their views.

Basically looking for the best way to be able to control 2 off-camera Canon 600EX-RT flashes at once. I already own 2 of these flashes,.

I see this as being achievable two ways

1) 3 x Canon 600EX-RT speedlite units. One on-camera set as master, two off camera being controller via radio on the master.
Benefits = redundant flash incase I ever need one (one of the other two breaks etc)
Drawbacks = size, weight and cost.

2) 2 x Canon 600EX-RT speedlite units and 1 x ST-E3 transceiver unit. Two off camera flashes as slaves being controlled by the STE3 on camera.
Benefits = cost, size and weight.
Drawbacks = no third "spare" flash incase of emergencies (although, with the money difference between the extra 600RT and the STE3 I could buy a couple of Yongnuo 568 ETTL flashes for on-camera use)

Thoughts much appreciated :)
Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Woops
 
I've gone down 2 x 600EX-RT route with 2 x ST-E3-RT's...the second one can be used as a slave to fire a remote camera simultaneously with the main camera and flashes (if needed).

Bob
 
futureal33 said:
Morning all,

A bit of a decision to be made on my part, just wondering if anyone in a similar position could offer their views.

Basically looking for the best way to be able to control 2 off-camera Canon 600EX-RT flashes at once. I already own 2 of these flashes,.

I see this as being achievable two ways

1) 3 x Canon 600EX-RT speedlite units. One on-camera set as master, two off camera being controller via radio on the master.
Benefits = redundant flash incase I ever need one (one of the other two breaks etc)
Drawbacks = size, weight and cost.

2) 2 x Canon 600EX-RT speedlite units and 1 x ST-E3 transceiver unit. Two off camera flashes as slaves being controlled by the STE3 on camera.
Benefits = cost, size and weight.
Drawbacks = no third "spare" flash incase of emergencies (although, with the money difference between the extra 600RT and the STE3 I could buy a couple of Yongnuo 568 ETTL flashes for on-camera use)

Thoughts much appreciated :)
Thanks!
Click to expand...


I think you've already summed all the pros and cons of both setups

personally i'd say it's annoying having a flash on camera, it's not just the size and weight, it's how it effects the balance of the camera when shooting in portrait, and if you need to swing your camera round your neck so you have your hands free to adjust something on set the flash really gets in the way
so i'd say st-e3 all the way, I have the yongnuo version and it's fine
spend the money you save on extra flashes, do you really need 568's? I'd just get 560 III's, you probably won't need the TTl feature, and afaik you can't trigger the 568's except in manual optical trigger mode, meaning the TTL functionality is redundant for off camera flash
 
On camera fill and a proper IR focus assist from an on camera 600exrt is far more worthy than the disadvantage of the weight. Canon really hampered sales of the E3 transmitter without an IR FA.

At least from a wedding photographers perspective, but yours may differ.

If I was in the market (I'm not, I prefer 622 and 580exIIs), I'd also wait for the 600 Yongnuo flash to be launched and see where to go from there.
 
Last edited:
Kris said:
On camera fill and a proper IR focus assist from an on camera 600exrt is far more worthy than the disadvantage of the weight. Canon really hampered sales of the E3 transmitter without an IR FA.

At least from a wedding photographers perspective, but yours may differ.

If I was in the market (I'm not, I prefer 622 and 580exIIs), I'd also wait for the 600 Yongnuo flash to be launched and see where to go from there.
Click to expand...

the st-e3 has IR focus assist?
at least the yn version does, which would be the one to get seeing as it can be used on any camera, even medium format, micro 4/3, everything!

and frontal fill with a bare flash, hmmm...
for some reason I was under the impression that the question was for studio use, but for weddings I guess a flash on camera works nicely for bounce
 
mrjames said:
...and frontal fill with a bare flash, hmmm...
for some reason I was under the impression that the question was for studio use, but for weddings I guess a flash on camera works nicely for bounce
Click to expand...
Buying 600 ex rt's for studio use? That would be stupid, considering the costs and alternatives.

They're designed to be used on camera with an option to set up an ad-hoc studio. Buying them just to set up a studio is ridiculous.

And frontal fill with bare flash? Completely acceptable where it's used properly, all of the 'issues' of bare on camera flash are negated when it's purely fill.
 
Yep, Phil agrees with me and I with him...

You don't buy 600exrt for studio use, I couldn't think of a worse light to use.

The Canon E3 does *not* have focus assist. They left it off. God only knows why - perhaps Canon designers aren't photographers? The Focus assist on the YN (same as on the 622) is no match for the Canon at all, which covers all Focus points properly. The E2 (bless it) did have it.

Yes, frontal fill with bare flash works perfectly, because its a fill (as long as you use it correctly) not a key and hence just raises shadow density. Plus, the cut and thrust of a wedding (esp a reception) sometimes requires a on camera light with off camera fill/accent depending on how you stand in relation to it and how close you run to ambient. You can't ratio to an E3.

That's why you need a 600exrt rather than a e3. But to each their own...
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Buying 600 ex rt's for studio use? That would be stupid, considering the costs and alternatives.

They're designed to be used on camera with an option to set up an ad-hoc studio. Buying them just to set up a studio is ridiculous.

And frontal fill with bare flash? Completely acceptable where it's used properly, all of the 'issues' of bare on camera flash are negated when it's purely fill.
Click to expand...


I think I might not have been clear enough in my post
and by the way my post was made at 9:30 am, and that wasn't 'bright and early' that was me just going to bed after pulling an all night editing session, hence my brain being a little frazzled.
When I said studio use I was referring to a 'on location', temporary, headshot style studio, not the full size studio

I do a huge amount of on location work, away from power sockets etc so I am a big advocate of speedlites, so as I have to own 3 speedlites anyway I just learn how to use them for everything, and for what it's worth the 600ex's were an insurance replacement for a pair of 550ex's that got nicked, wouldn't have paid full price for them, no way- agree that buying 600's would be a bad choice there, but in effect I only paid £90 each for my 600's :D

also looking forward to the yn600's


Kris said:
Yep, Phil agrees with me and I with him...

You don't buy 600exrt for studio use, I couldn't think of a worse light to use.

The Canon E3 does *not* have focus assist. They left it off. God only knows why - perhaps Canon designers aren't photographers? The Focus assist on the YN (same as on the 622) is no match for the Canon at all, which covers all Focus points properly. The E2 (bless it) did have it.

Yes, frontal fill with bare flash works perfectly, because its a fill (as long as you use it correctly) not a key and hence just raises shadow density. Plus, the cut and thrust of a wedding (esp a reception) sometimes requires a on camera light with off camera fill/accent depending on how you stand in relation to it and how close you run to ambient. You can't ratio to an E3.

That's why you need a 600exrt rather than a e3. But to each their own...
Click to expand...

agree the focus assist on the yongnuo st-e3 isn't very good, but works fine on the centre point, which is what i'm normally using anyway

never really liked the look of on camera fill, just not my aesthetic, makes everything look superimposed, fake, unreal, false
 
mrjames said:
never really liked the look of on camera fill, just not my aesthetic, makes everything look superimposed, fake, unreal, false
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just don't understand this statement whatsoever.

On camera (or from camera position) is the perfect place for fill, as its 'everywhere and nowhere', as a fill should be. The position and hardness of a fill should not even be detectable in the image, let alone make it look 'superimposed...'.

Ideally, it would be a 60" white shoot through from behind camera, or ever a ring-flash around the lens. YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Kris said:
Sorry, I just don't understand this statement whatsoever.
Click to expand...

it sets up a 'plane of light' on the subject and brings them forward and out of the environment in a very unrealistic and flat way, I know it's a legit lighting technique, I just happen to not be a big fan of it and I don't shoot like that

I guess an analogy would be a living room that looks great when you carefully set up lots of lamps around the room, pockets of light that naturally fill the space leaving areas of shadow and interest, and then you turn on the main overhead light and it's like...oh, now all the ambience has vanished...


but that's just my way of lighting, and it works for me, and I also happen to not like the bulkiness of having a flash on camera when shooting with 2 bodies, so physically and aesthetically having a flash not on the camera is my preference, which is why I say to go for the st-e3 instead, if I need frontal fill i'll pull a flash out my pocket and hand hold it or ceiling bounce it, or i'll have someone hold up an umbrella, or whatever is needed to get the shot.
 
Last edited:
mrjames said:
it sets up a 'plane of light' on the subject and brings them forward and out of the environment in a very unrealistic and flat way, I know it's a legit lighting technique, I just happen to not be a big fan of it and I don't shoot like that

I guess an analogy would be a living room that looks great when you carefully set up lots of lamps around the room, pockets of light that naturally fill the space leaving areas of shadow and interest, and then you turn on the main overhead light and it's like...oh, now all the ambience has vanished...


but that's just my way of lighting, and it works for me, and I also happen to not like the bulkiness of having a flash on camera when shooting with 2 bodies, so physically and aesthetically having a flash not on the camera is my preference, which is why I say to go for the st-e3 instead, if I need frontal fill i'll pull a flash out my pocket and hand hold it or ceiling bounce it, or i'll have someone hold up an umbrella, or whatever is needed to get the shot.
Click to expand...
I think the point we were making is that on camera fill is 'fill' so in your living room analogy it's be the 'big light' switched on with a dimmer to just lift the shadows from darkness rather than becoming the main source of light.

What you're describing is the over flashed look which happens when you don't know how to use it properly.
 
Last edited:
mrjames said:
it sets up a 'plane of light' on the subject and brings them forward and out of the environment in a very unrealistic and flat way,
Click to expand...
What you describe is an over-lit image.

As I said earlier...
Kris said:
and how close you run to ambient
Click to expand...
so that your light should be indiscernible and very natural looking. Domestically, light is far too top heavy typically.

Completely agree with weight however - full frame/2.8/580exII is heavy. Just tools of the trade, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
I have just purchased 3x 600-RT with a ST-E3. Based on the performance I have got from a 10 year old 580EX I think these are a worthy investment.. Excited to see what I can do with them.
 
Last edited:
Johnny1982 said:
I have just purchased 3x 600-RT with a ST-E2. Based on the performance I have got from a 10 year old 580EX I think these are a worthy investment.. Excited to see what I can do with them.
Click to expand...

ST-E2 to make sure you can't use radio control and rely on 20 year old IR? Well done. A few 430EX would have done same job
 
600ex-rts were £340 each at the Photo Show. I was tempted to get a few at that price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top