I have synced the speedlite up with my 60D as the slave to use remotely, ie through infrared, and yep it works fine. But, it only works with both the camera flash AND the speedlite going off simultaneously, EVEN THOUGH i have it set to ONLY the off camera flash.
It is driving me nuts and I've tried resetting the flash settings etc. I just can't figure it out at all.
The best I seem to be able to get it is put it on manual settings and have the camera flash quite dull, but this is only a fix around, I'd prefer no fill light if I'm going to bother having the off camera flash remote etc.
A common misconception with Canon's optical master/slave system is that communication is done between the flashes using infrared light that's invisible to the naked eye (as in a TV remote control).
While it is true that the slave flash has an infra-red receiver, the master flashes do not have infra-red transmitters (with the exception of the ST-E2 controller). Instead, they communicate with the slave flash(es) by pulsing their own flash tube (which emits light in both the visible and infrared spectrums).
This means that, if you wish to control a slave remotely and not have the master contribute to the photo, as in your case, the master flash will still fire control signals to the slave when you press the shutter. What's actually happening (or should be) is that, as you press the shutter release, your 60D flash is firing to tell the slave what to do, before the camera opens the shutter, and the slave flash fires. In the resulting photo, the 60D flash will not have contributed, even though you see it flash to communicate when you press the shutter.
Note that this is (poorly) documented on page 141 of your Canon 60D manual: 'Even if you disable the built-in flash from firing, it will still fire to control the slave unit'.
As far as I know, you indeed need the camera flash when using the off camera flash. With my 5D - having no camera flash - therefore I can't use the speedlite off camera (except when I buy an on camera trigger). But I will try later today with my 60D.
@djepie yep jaap, I've learned that it is one of the cool bonuses of the 60D, only the 7D and 60D work this way.
@abirkill Alexis, thank you SO much for explaining this to me in a way I could understand. You're awesome, and I "get it" now haha. So it turns out I was doing it all right anyhow, woot yay, now to actually use it hehe. Excited now :)
Well I am just so happy you asked the question, because I recently purchased this flash too and it was driving me crazy that I couldn't get the on camera flash not to fire on my 60D!!! Thank you so much for the info! I haven't taken the time to do further research yet, so yeah!!!
I do the same with my 430exii flashes. If you set it so only the flash icon is chosen, your camera flash will go off. However this is just to trigger the slaves, the cameras flash will not add to exposure. By the way in also using a 60d.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
While it is true that the slave flash has an infra-red receiver, the master flashes do not have infra-red transmitters (with the exception of the ST-E2 controller). Instead, they communicate with the slave flash(es) by pulsing their own flash tube (which emits light in both the visible and infrared spectrums).
This means that, if you wish to control a slave remotely and not have the master contribute to the photo, as in your case, the master flash will still fire control signals to the slave when you press the shutter. What's actually happening (or should be) is that, as you press the shutter release, your 60D flash is firing to tell the slave what to do, before the camera opens the shutter, and the slave flash fires. In the resulting photo, the 60D flash will not have contributed, even though you see it flash to communicate when you press the shutter.
Note that this is (poorly) documented on page 141 of your Canon 60D manual: 'Even if you disable the built-in flash from firing, it will still fire to control the slave unit'.
@abirkill Alexis, thank you SO much for explaining this to me in a way I could understand. You're awesome, and I "get it" now haha. So it turns out I was doing it all right anyhow, woot yay, now to actually use it hehe. Excited now :)