# Serious design flaw with the new 430EX III-RT ?



## s2kdriver80 (Nov 2, 2015)

So compared with the outgoing 430EX II flash, the newer flash has two AF-assist beam options: the default rapid flash (think AF-assist of the built-in Rebel flashes) and the normal infrared beam. No idea why the rapid flash method is set to default but whatever, you can change it to the more familiar infrared method so no big deal or so I thought.

Except for the fact that when in the infrared AF-assist mode, this beam is available only when the camera is set on the center AF point. You would think it's a bug that could be remedied by firmware, but the manual confirms this behavior as the intended "feature".

From page 87 of the manual...
"When [Infrared mode] is set, manually select the center AF point. When an AF point other than the center AF point is selected, focusing with the AF-assist beam is not possible (AF-assist beam is not emitted)."

Not sure what they're thinking. I guess this aligns with their decision to leave out any kind of AF-assist on the ST-E3-RT. Do they really think their modern cameras' AF ability is that good in the dark? Or do they want people to start using the rapid flash method to focus in the dark (I can see this annoying/confusing subjects at events, not to mention a longer lock time and probably quicker battery drain)?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2015)

Ouch! I wonder what the beam projection pattern looks like? The 600EX-RT projects a wider pattern than the 430EX II, and the latter is not sufficient to cover the outer points of the 61-point array of the 1D X/5DIII. But even if they used the same beam projector as the 430EX II for the III-RT, it seems like they could just warn that extreme outer points may not covered, rather than disabling the beam in firmware.


----------



## s2kdriver80 (Nov 2, 2015)

Exactly. Even if coverage is not complete (although it should be being that this is a new flash here to stay for years), should not disable the beam. A serious WTF IMO.

An otherwise excellent flash. Dials instead of awkward buttons. Radio master capability. Included gel and stofen.


----------



## bholliman (Nov 2, 2015)

This does appear to be a significant oversight, I usually am using the non-center AF points on my 5DSr.

I think I'll buy a 430EX III-RT regardless. I like having a smaller flash mounted to bounce at times, the 600EX-RT's are great, but pretty large and heavy. I sold my 430EX II in 2014 as I wanted to have an all-RT flash set-up, but have missed its size at times.


----------



## s2kdriver80 (Nov 2, 2015)

Yea weird. The slightly older yet still relatively new 600EX-RT and the now ancient 430EX II support the outer periphery, why not this latest 430EX III-RT?

Not sure what to do at this point as I'm approaching the end of the return window for the two 430EX III-RTs I picked up. Hold on to the older pair of 430EX IIs I still have for indoor event work and keep the newer 430EX III-RTs for daylight fill and/or off-camera flash work? Or return the new flashes hoping Canon will release something like a Mark II version with the AF-assist fix?


----------



## brad-man (Nov 2, 2015)

Here comes Canon with the ST-E4 RT...


----------



## MintChocs (Nov 3, 2015)

s2kdriver80 said:


> Yea weird. The slightly older yet still relatively new 600EX-RT and the now ancient 430EX II support the outer periphery, why not this latest 430EX III-RT?
> 
> Not sure what to do at this point as I'm approaching the end of the return window for the two 430EX III-RTs I picked up. Hold on to the older pair of 430EX IIs I still have for indoor event work and keep the newer 430EX III-RTs for daylight fill and/or off-camera flash work? Or return the new flashes hoping Canon will release something like a Mark II version with the AF-assist fix?


Extremely unlikely a Mark II will be released. If it's in the manual this was a marketing decision. If you need that facility you have to spend more and get the 600EX.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Nov 3, 2015)

MintChocs said:


> s2kdriver80 said:
> 
> 
> > Yea weird. The slightly older yet still relatively new 600EX-RT and the now ancient 430EX II support the outer periphery, why not this latest 430EX III-RT?
> ...


 Wow. That's pretty low. Even for sleazy marketing people.


----------



## s2kdriver80 (Nov 3, 2015)

Strange. If they wanted to be cheap, you would think they would skimp out on extras like radio master capability before deleting an essential fundamental function that was present in its predecessor like being able to lock focus properly in the dark.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2015)

Can anyone with a 430EX III-RT take a picture of the AF assist beam projection? (I shot the ones above with an S100 during focusing on a blank white wall.) The manual indicates it's a 'beam aiming at the center AF point'. 



MintChocs said:


> Extremely unlikely a Mark II will be released. If it's in the manual this was a marketing decision. If you need that facility you have to spend more and get the 600EX.



Agree an updated 430 is unlikely. Not sure about it being a marketing decision to drive 600 sales. Not that I think Canon wouldn't/couldn't, but this isn't a top line spec, nor even a website-listed spec at all. It's buried deep in the C.Fn's. I'd think they'd pick something more obvious to differentiate...which they have. Only the 600 is an optical master, meaning only the 600 can bridge legacy flashes. I was surprised they made the 430 III a radio master, but it makes sense in retrospect – like Pringles, you can't have just one.  

I suspect there's a technical reason – perhaps the standard grid they've used is less effective with a very high-density AF point array like the 65-point AF in an APS-C frame on the 7DII, whereas the strobe assist is better so they included the red beam for the center only (it gives better range and works with gels on).


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 3, 2015)

s2kdriver80 said:


> So compared with the outgoing 430EX II flash, the newer flash has two AF-assist beam options: the default rapid flash (think AF-assist of the built-in Rebel flashes) and the normal infrared beam. No idea why the rapid flash method is set to default but whatever, you can change it to the more familiar infrared method so no big deal or so I thought.
> 
> Except for the fact that when in the infrared AF-assist mode, this beam is available only when the camera is set on the center AF point. You would think it's a bug that could be remedied by firmware, but the manual confirms this behavior as the intended "feature".
> 
> ...


It's a shame that this feature was omitted/removed.


----------



## s2kdriver80 (Nov 3, 2015)

Ok so I did some quick tests with both the 430EX II and the 430EX III-RT with my 5D3. Didn't have an opportunity to take pics of the infrared beam yet.

Did the tests in landscape orientation (you can mentally rotate the image in your head 90 degrees for portrait orientation).

With the tungsten gel placed on the 430EX III-RT, rapid flash AF-assist does not work period, so need to switch to infrared AF-assist mode but then you're limited to only the center AF point. Nice limitation Canon, should one choose to shoot indoors under incandescent lighting.

Without that amber gel, AF-assist works as described in the original post - center AF point only in infrared mode, and all AF points in rapid flash mode.

Now using the older 430EX II flash, if the center AF point is chosen, a vertical infrared beam is fired at the wall. When an outer left or right AF point is chosen, in addition to the vertical beam, a horizontal beam appears as well to form a cross as shown in neuro's post above. I'm able to get an AF lock with pretty much any AF point on the 5D3, infrared coverage is adequate.

Moving on to the 430EX III-RT flash, the infrared beam is fired only when the center AF point is chosen, yet this vertical beam is significantly smaller in size than the one generated by the 430EX II when the center AF point is chosen. Even if there is a firmware "fix" or someone is able to hack the flash so that the infrared beam is fired with any AF point, who knows if the infrared diode in the flash body is able to generate anything larger than the tiny vertical beam (or if a horizontal beam is even possible).


----------



## s2kdriver80 (Nov 3, 2015)

If there is no fix for this problem, the 430EX III-RT is virtually useless for on-camera low-light event work, unless you switch to rapid flash AF-assist mode. But then with all of the photos you'll be taking, you'll probably end up with annoyed guests and other pissed off photographers who have a bunch of overexposed flash shots.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 3, 2015)

s2kdriver80 said:


> ...
> Moving on to the 430EX III-RT flash, the infrared beam is fired only when the center AF point is chosen, yet this vertical beam is significantly smaller in size than the one generated by the 430EX II
> ...


Thanks for trying that out, s2kdriver80! 

Reading the above and not believing that the beam can be controlled to produce other patterns this makes me feel really puzzeled. 
I cannot understand that Canon is crippling down that "for the crowd" flash with this "feature" whilst its predecessor was better on that. : : :



s2kdriver80 said:


> If there is no fix for this problem, the 430EX III-RT is virtually useless for on-camera low-light event work, unless you switch to rapid flash AF-assist mode. But then with all of the photos you'll be taking, you'll probably end up with annoyed guests and other pissed off photographers who have a bunch of overexposed flash shots.


So this would be exactly my conclusion:
If there is no fix this flash is DOA _(edit as on camera master and AF assist._
Because people need off center AF points and because rapid flash AF assist is 1000% (in words: one thousand) annoing to almost anyone.
_(edit maybe it'll still be a good RT. But here I would go the way using all the same flashes_
Pitty! 
Because all the rest of its spec looked like Canon would be getting my money for at least two of them. "Pringels" as Neuro said. (and the 600RT looks still too big and pricy to me).

Thank to all for finding that out.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Nov 3, 2015)

Better off with a grey 600exrt then, can not believe they would skimp out on the AF assist, glad I did not bother with one, YN RT controller was my AF option for OCF.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Nov 17, 2015)

Canon being lazy and greedy again. This is why I didn't get the ex III. I read about the ex ii beam and knew they wouldn't change it. I have a bunch of 600ex rt but they are bulky and add too much weight and stress to the hot shoe. especially when I have more than one camera on at the same time.


----------

