# A New Flash by Years End? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 15, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14004"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14004">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>A replacement to the 430EX II?

</strong>We’re told a new flash could be announced before years end, though it wasn’t said whether or not it would be replacing an existing flash or being added to the lineup. The lineup does need a less expensive RT capable Speedlite.</p>
<p>We’re also told that the EOS M lineup will also get a new flash above the 90 EX. I think all it needs is the ability to bounce, not sure why they still make flashes that cant be tilted upwards.</p>
<p>More to come I’m sure..</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p> </p>
```


----------



## hkenneth (Jul 15, 2013)

I already have 2 430ex II but if they could add master function in the 430ex II replacement, I am definitely in.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 15, 2013)

Looking forward to them!



hkenneth said:


> ...if they could add master function in the 430ex II replacement, I am definitely in.



Unlikely. There's no technical reason the 430EX II can't be a master, the control signals for Canon's optical triggering come from the main flash tube, and the 430EX II obviously has one of those. So expect a replacement 4x0EX flash to be slave only, but able to be triggered by both RF (600EX-RT or ST-E3-RT) or optical masters.


----------



## hkenneth (Jul 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Looking forward to them!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I guess so too. That is like the only thing that really differentiate 430ex from 600ex.

But thinking about it, it is somehow strange that Canon decided add master function to 90ex, which is way cheaper than ST-E3-RT with more functions (being a not-so-great fill flash on its own)


----------



## Lawliet (Jul 15, 2013)

hkenneth said:


> But thinking about it, it is somehow strange that Canon decided add master function to 90ex, which is way cheaper than ST-E3-RT with more functions (being a not-so-great fill flash on its own)



The 90EX is a detachable popup flash, those got master capabilities a while ago.
The RT stuff otoh offers more groups and finer control of what they do. I'd be surprised if that 430EX-replacement gets autoflash - quite handy, and a 580EX2/600EX-only feature.


----------



## silvestography (Jul 15, 2013)

I'd love some affordable RT capable slaves...


----------



## Etienne (Jul 15, 2013)

I would like to buy all Canon flashes, but I find they are over-priced


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 15, 2013)

Etienne said:


> I would like to buy all Canon flashes, but I find they are over-priced


I'm with you on that Etienne. I however doubt that Canon will drastically reduce their prices  

How do Canon's flashes compare to Nikon? I read a review which said the Nikon's are superior.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 15, 2013)

I just bought 5 600rts. 

These next speedlites better be RT capable.


----------



## Camerajah (Jul 15, 2013)

its about time,they better be RT


----------



## Wildfire (Jul 15, 2013)

Sabaki said:


> How do Canon's flashes compare to Nikon? I read a review which said the Nikon's are superior.



Nikon probably used to be superior, but Canon now has built-in radio wireless capability.

In order to use radio wireless with Nikon flashes, you must purchase expensive third party radio transmitters and recievers as well as batteries for those transmitters and recievers. Canon's 600EX-RT has the radio transmitter/receiver built-in and powered by the same batteries as the flash.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 15, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> not sure why they still make flashes that cant be tilted upwards.



Explanation: Because Canon can sell two flashes to newbies, first an inexpensive w/o tilt and then a proper flash once people realize the importance of off-camera and indirect flash.



neuroanatomist said:


> Unlikely. There's no technical reason the 430EX II can't be a master, the control signals for Canon's optical triggering come from the main flash tube



... which is why I'm still a little annoyed because the 600rt cannot be a radio *and* optical master at the same time, unless someone comes up with a clever tech explanation my guess is that Canon removes the command sequence from the (ettl) pre-flash to pressure people into completely switching to the expensive 600rt line.



RLPhoto said:


> I just bought 5 600rts.  These next speedlites better be RT capable.



They'll probably release a _660rt in fall w/ ettl3 protocol, including remote 2nd curtain sync and remote zoom_.

Since there is a heavy official Canon rebate in Germany on the 600rt which is unusual for new equipment I wouldn't be surprised if they'd also replace their master flash along with releasing a smaller model.


----------



## Zv (Jul 16, 2013)

At the very least I hope they fix those stupid tiny buttons on the 430EXII!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 16, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> ... which is why I'm still a little annoyed because the 600rt cannot be a radio *and* optical master at the same time, unless someone comes up with a clever tech explanation my guess is that Canon removes the command sequence from the (ettl) pre-flash to pressure people into completely switching to the expensive 600rt line.



The technical explanation is not hard, RT offers five groups, optical offers three, that would be eight way communication with test flashes of each group and optical triggering of the three optically triggered groups, * between shutter press and shutter release, a total of at least 14 pulses of flash before * the actual flash fire. Pre 2012 cameras can only deal with three groups in the time between shutter press and shutter release. I believe this is why pre 2012 bodies have ETTL and HSS, Group mode, and sync limitations, they were not designed for more than three group functionality. 

Of course if Canon wanted to they could probably firmware upgrade the pre 2012 bodies to work with full five RT groups, but I suspect even the post 2012 bodies would suffer shutter lag and very possibly sync limitations with an eight group ETTL firing sequence.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 16, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Pre 2012 cameras can only deal with three groups in the time between shutter press and shutter release. I believe this is why pre 2012 bodies have ETTL and HSS, Group mode, and sync limitations, they were not designed for more than three group functionality.



Interesting theory, but still Canon could have implemented a legacy mode where the rt flashes are limited the traditional three groups if they wanted to - with two flashes, you don't need group mode and my guess is that a lot of people would have welcomed such a compatibility esp. since Canon doesn't offer rt triggers.


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 16, 2013)

Zv said:


> At the very least I hope they fix those stupid tiny buttons on the 430EXII!



Most def!!! Those buttons are too recessed and too small. My single biggest issue with the 430 EX II


----------



## rt (Jul 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> hkenneth said:
> 
> 
> > ...if they could add master function in the 430ex II replacement, I am definitely in.
> ...


A few years ago I'd have agreed completely with this prediction however today I am not completely sure -- Canon seem to be trying to catch up by adding wireless and master capability to their smaller flashes.

430EX is a special case (from the market perspective) that is not very likely to get Master but seeing where things are going I wouldn't be surprised if Canon did just that.

Personally, I only care because I need something that can trigger remote flashes (optical or RT), doesn't necessarily have to flash itself but it needs to have solid AF assist. Even if Canon add RT master capability to their next gen cams (and I hope they will, there's nothing preventing them from doing so, especially that the business case is already there with 7D being able to be Master), I will still miss the latter -- thus I am very interested in a flash that is lighter than 580EX/ 600EX, like the 430EX replacement or (better) 270EX / 320EX / 380EX replacement -- with RT/ optical master and real AF assist (the red lights); I could use the LED light as well, but that's a minor thing.


----------



## KyleSTL (Jul 18, 2013)

rt said:


> ... solid AF assist.



I agree, I love my ST-E2 for that reason. Why they removed it on the ST-E3 is baffling. If you want to buy new you only have three choices right now: 430EX II and 600EX-RT, neither of which is small or light; or the ST-E2 with a soon to be out-out-of-date protocol and a battery that is becoming pretty rare.

Even the relatively ancient 220EX had a proper AF assist beam (albeit only for the center AF point and a range of 16 ft). I feel that all flashes and commanders should have proper AF assistance. Is Canon so confident in its newest AF technology that it doesn't feel the need to add these things anymore? And what about those of us who don't have a 1D X, 5D Mark III or 6D?


----------



## Wildfire (Jul 18, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> Is Canon so confident in its newest AF technology that it doesn't feel the need to add these things anymore?



I've found that I almost don't need AF assist with the 6D's super-sensitive center point, however focus still locks quicker with the AF assist on so I continue to use it (and will refuse to buy an ST-E3 because it lacks that feature)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 18, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> Why they removed it on the ST-E3 is baffling.



Not really, the ST-E3-RT is a radio based wireless transmitter, the ST-E2 is a wireless communication device that uses light to transmit information, *the ST-E2 has to have a light emitting tube,* so enabling AF assist is comparatively easy with no additional hardware costs. The ST-E3-RT, does not need a light emitting tube to fulfill its primary function, radio flash control, adding AF assist is no small job and would necessitate addition hardware and costs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> KyleSTL said:
> 
> 
> > Why they removed it on the ST-E3 is baffling.
> ...



Not really. The AF assist lamp on the ST-E2 is separate from the xenon flash tube that's used to trigger remote flashes. There's no reason it couldn't have been added to the ST-E3...except to induce people to spend twice as much on a 600EX-RT as a master, if they want an AF assist lamp.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 18, 2013)

Good point  

If I wanted AF assist I'd campaign to Yonuguo for either a YT-E3-RT with assist, or a small AF assist unit with a pass-through. Their ST-E2 clone has bounce capabilities which the Canon doesn't.

On the gadget front I'd pay good money for a swiveling hotshoe pass-through block. I hate the screen angle of the ST-E3-RT, when the camera is mounted on a tripod and tilted down I can't see or us it!


----------



## Hannes (Jul 19, 2013)

Indeed, I wonder how long it takes for yonguo to hack the RT system, not that I'm entirely sure it can be done though. I'm going to assume canon has built in lots of checks to prevent hacking it, something that ought to be far easier with a radio transmitter than something that emits normal light


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 19, 2013)

Hannes said:


> Indeed, I wonder how long it takes for yonguo to hack the RT system, not that I'm entirely sure it can be done though. I'm going to assume canon has built in lots of checks to prevent hacking it.



I'm also keen to see how long it takes to reverse engineer the rt protocol. Of course it theoretically *could* be prevented by Canon by using strong asymmetric cryptography (i.e. you cannot replay the communication, and each flash has a different key signed by Canon's secret master key).

Still, I wonder if Canon would really go to such lengths to screw 3rd party manufacturers - after all, cheaper 3rd party units (lenses, flashes) are also a strength of the Canon system vs. for example Pentax.


----------



## Lawliet (Jul 21, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> (i.e. you cannot replay the communication, and each flash has a different key signed by Canon's secret master key).



At least straight replay won't work as there is a two way communication between controller and remote. The camera is aware of the capabilities & status of the flashes it talks to.
Remember all that 3rd party flashes that suddenly didn't work on the hot shoe of the 1Dx? Same challenge, but for a protocol that is intended to be more flexible.
(And didn't at least one of the big players patet protect a radio solution? That would make getting the products through customs interesting. See the first Phottix Atlas...a simple PW receiver with hot shoe would have been nice though)


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 21, 2013)

I literally just upgraded to a 580 ex ii... so while I may be tempted... it isn't going to happen.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 21, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I literally just upgraded to a 580 ex ii... so while I may be tempted... it isn't going to happen.



After using the 600ex, I can't go back. It supports a zoom range up to 200mm, which makes a 70-200 much more useful indoors.


----------



## archiea (Sep 3, 2013)

They really need to make the investment in the RT tech worth while.. meaning lesser flashes that have the ability to join RT groups. Perhaps even a receiver only hotshoe that can make any TTL2 flash they have a slave. That would show that Canon cares about its customers. I'd love to "recruit" my old 580EX to be a radio slave to use as a fill flash or a background light. 

Or have the pocket wizard guys reverse engineer and ST-RT and control flashes that way.....


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 4, 2013)

archiea said:


> They really need to make the investment in the RT tech worth while.. meaning lesser flashes that have the ability to join RT groups. Perhaps even a receiver only hotshoe that can make any TTL2 flash they have a slave. That would show that Canon cares about its customers. I'd love to "recruit" my old 580EX to be a radio slave to use as a fill flash or a background light.
> 
> Or have the pocket wizard guys reverse engineer and ST-RT and control flashes that way.....



That is just not going to happen. The RT system uses a completely different series of protocols to support a completely different set of functions, a fully RT system compatible RT trigger would have to over ride the older flashes firmware and provide complete flash control, that isn't a cheap option so will never come to market from Canon and, I suspect, would be too big an undertaking for the third party manufacturers too. I do expect third party manufacturers to come out with RT compatible flashes in time, but not RT triggers that upgrade older flashes to the RT functionality.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 4, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I do expect third party manufacturers to come out with RT compatible flashes in time, but not RT triggers that upgrade older flashes to the RT functionality.



I predict you're mistaken - unless Canon has invested a lot of work into (strong asymmetric) encrypting their rt protocol, Yongnuo will reverse engineer it shortly and then might even provide rt triggers first before integrated rt flashes - that's because this way they can keep their flash lineup compatible with multiple manufacturers.

Given the current price range of rt flashes there is very much money to be made from the large amount of people with legacy non-rt equipment and, Yongnuo's own radio protocol doesn't provide group mode - so they'll try hard.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 4, 2013)

It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong! 

I really don't keep fully up to date on the third party flash wars nowadays and whilst I was very interested in the Phottix Odin system to drive my fleet of 550EX flashes, a flash I used with Yongnuo RF-602's for years and still consider to be a better buy than third party ETTL optical compatible flashes, I was seduced by the 600EX-RT's and haven't looked back.

I suppose cracking the camera flash control menu firmware from a post 2012 body isn't too complex, but even if/when they do, I don't see the triggers being anything like the bargain priced accessories we currently see. Which puts getting the trigger and the resale value of your 580EX close to the rebate price of the 600, when Canon really cash in with a 450EX-RT the third party market for RT compatible triggers will become even smaller.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 4, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't see the triggers being anything like the bargain priced accessories we currently see.



Looking at the price of the current YN proprietary triggers, there shouldn't be much of a price difference for the rt version - it's rally just some cents of electronics in a plastic casing, they don't even have the lcd display of the st-e3.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 4, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see the triggers being anything like the bargain priced accessories we currently see.
> ...



That would be a fair comment if cost per unit had nothing to do with perceived value per unit. Do you really think a YN-622 costs anywhere near four times as much to make as an RF-603? An RT YN-642 trigger would cost appreciably more than the 622, even if i was only £20 more that still takes it to £100 for wireless control of one flash, hardly the budget option that the RF-602 got us into at $25 a set. 

If they didn't do the LCD it would be considerably less attractive, the ST-E2 doesn't have one so the 622 doesn't need one, but the RT system has much more functionality and digging through the camera flash menu becomes a chore with all the enhancements.

The way I see it whilst some people will always be excited at saving a few hundred dollars (or a hundred quid or so) once people start using the stuff and limitations start showing up then people see less value in third party, no new RT system option will be cheap and whereas with the current third party radio ETTL control that offers something Canon never did, going against direct competition with less functionality, as opposed to no competition with enhanced functionality, seems to make little sense to me.

But as I said, I have been wrong many times before.


----------

