mpenza said:
While it's good to understand theory behind the design, it's also important not to ignore what's happening.
Examples of "downsizing" while maintaining/increasing GN:
1. Nikon SB24 weighs 390g (without batteries) while Nikon SB28 weighs 320g (without batteries) and has a smaller volume. Both have similar GN.
2. Canon 550EX weighs 405g (without batteries) while Canon 580EX weighs 375g (without batteries) and has a smaller volume. Canon 580EX has higher GN and more zoom options.
I could not agree more. So I weighted my T32 a few minutes ago.
T32 without batteries: 299g
With 4 AA size batteries: 401g
With grip including 4 extra A-size batteries: 876g
My interpretation of my and your figures are: T32 is both lighter and a bit more powerful than SB28, even if it is some 20-25 years older. Grip is not needed for GN, it is needed to be able to hold the camera better, give power for extreme fast recharge and to place the flash a bit to the side to get better pictures. T32 can be placed on top of camera if one prefers that. See the guide number table here:
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf4/flash/SB28/index.htm
Canon 580EX also specified with zoom 105mm to have GN58, it covers 30m with 50mm lense while my T32 covers 25 at the same 1.4 aperture.
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=141&modelid=10514 It may be a bit more powerful than T32 but not much. I can not see the comparable information anywhere. Maybe in user manual.
Canon 550EX is actually less powerful (in GN) than T32 at same 24mm as T32 is specified.
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/co...hSpecsSupportAct&fcategoryid=217&modelid=7270
Now, once again, I don't say there are no better flashes than T32, just that it is a very very good flash, well worth its price if one is prepared to use semiautomatic or manual mode. Definitly not something you just throw away and call it useless. And this debate only convinced me to eve more belive that my flashes are no weak old rubbishes, but good and powerful onece when you compare the same data.
mpenza said:
The calculations about range and GN remains the same whether digital or otherwise (as long as you have the right understanding - Olympus seems to be the only manufacturer that uses actual focal length of digital lenses in the flash). Agree with you that manufacturers can be confusing.
As far as I can see, both Nikon and Canon is also using the same, or similar method and that is the only method I know of. You always have to consider focal length. General GN calculations are just to make life easy for us.
mpenza said:
...However, from the link you provide, there is no zoom head in T32. It's only that the sensor that measures flash at the same angle as the taking lens (not that there's a concentrator that helps to increase flash range). Hence, when you go beyond 24mm, FL50 and FL36 will give you longer flash range due to the "concentration" of the flash beam by the zoom head (lesser extent for FL36).
Sorry, I forgot to say click twice on Next at the bottom of the page. Anyway, here it is.
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/flash/t32flash/index2.htm Grip, flash, zoom and more data.
Now if you'd say the flashes you mentioned are more advanced, I would say, that's no surprise, they are some 25 years younger. Technology advanced since the T32. But if you say T32 is a low end, old, low GN garbage, I would say,
You don't know what you are talking about.
Thank you for enlightening my vision. Before this debate I just had a feeling that my flashes are very good. Now I have the knowledge also, because you forced me to google and read more facts about other species on this earth.:thumbsup:
Let's end this discussion brother (or sister) in peace :cheers: and agree, that two people can probably never agree on flashes. As long as you are happy with your Canon, Nikon or whatever it is definitly a good flash, at least for you. And thats what counts.
:cheergal: