Can I get good results without an expensive flash?

[Henry Wilt]

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, I am new to digital photography and have recently purchased (about 2 months ago) a Canon 500D which so far I am absolutely delighted with. I want to buy an additional lens (which I am still researching and will probably end up asking opinions on here at a later date) so don't have a great deal of spare cash for an expensive flash. As I said, I am delighted with the camera and have acheived results far better than i was expecting at this early stage apart from low light shots i.e. at night. I have had some reasonable shots without the flash and a few reasonale shots using the built in flash but the shops are telling me I need to spend a minimum of 14000 baht (approx $500) on a flash if I want to improve the quality.
Please tell me this isn't so and there are techniques to get around this. I don't take enough photo's at night to justify that sort of outlay at the moment.

PS. I don't expect anybody to provide me with detailed explanations of techniques, just a pointer to book titles or websites that might explain as my research has been fairly fruitless.

Thanks in advance.

[inkista]

Canon offers two external flash units: the 430EX II and the 580EXII. The 580EXII is about US$450, and the 430EX II is about US$250. And, there are older flashes that will work just as well, they just have fewer features: the 430EX, 580EX, and 550 EX are all still great speedlights to find, if you want full function on a Canon dSLR.

If you're willing to risk build quality/consistency and give up more features, you could go for something like a Yongnuo YN-465 or YN-457 (~US $100), which can also be used on the hotshoe, and will do eTTL. If you're willing to give up eTTL (automatic power level setting via the metering), you could get even cheaper units.

The hardest part with a flash is learning to use it. The two sites I'd recommend looking at to learn how to do that would be http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-pho...hy-techniques/, and http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/02...-strobist.html

[Henry Wilt]

Thanks for the reply inkista, I guess what you're telling me is that I do have to spend money on an external flash. (The prices I quoted are in Thailand and all camera equipment seems to be more expensive here which is probably the difference.) I will be studying the websites you have suggested to learn more about the subject before I can decide what features etc. I will require as and when I can afford a decent flash.

PS. I spotted a seperate forum regarding lighting on the board, I guess this should have gone in there or I should have at least checked it 1st.
Sorry mods.

[vegepunkstr]

Are you asking if it is required to have a flash to take great pictures? No its not required but it does depend on what kind of pictures you are wanting to take and what the lighting situation around you is.You can take amazing pictures with just natural light.

[LeeR]

Check out the following link to see some low budget suggestions from one of Americas top wedding photographers: David Ziser.

[Henry Wilt]

Originally Posted by vegepunkstr

Are you asking if it is required to have a flash to take great pictures? No its not required but it does depend on what kind of pictures you are wanting to take and what the lighting situation around you is.You can take amazing pictures with just natural light.

At the moment I am still learning the basics so the pictures I am concentrating on (for learning techniques, settings etc) tend to be with good light anyway but I still would like to be able to get good pictures in the house in the evening or at partys or even when out for a meal etc. The pictures I get with the built in flash all seem so artificial and without it either blurred (probably because I'm not using a tripod) and/or have an orange tint to them.
I have started taking pictures in RAW this week and am going to attempt to start processing them on the computer to see what can be done over the next few days, maybe that will help (not too hopeful as it all sounds very complicated reading other peoples posts on processing).

Thanks for the link LeeR, I will check it out at home as it's blocked at work.

[Vagebond]

The orange tint is due to electric lights inside. Look up "white balance" in your camera's manual. The "WB" button on the back of your camera. Try it out, if one of the presets doesn't work "custom" may be the way to go.

[Henry Wilt]

Originally Posted by Vagebond

The orange tint is due to electric lights inside. Look up "white balance" in your camera's manual. The "WB" button on the back of your camera. Try it out, if one of the presets doesn't work "custom" may be the way to go.

Thanks for that, I've seen the button and tried to read that part of the manual but didn't fully understand it (I think I'm trying to stuff too much info into my brain in too short a time to fully comprehend any of it!). I'm off out tonight so I think I'll experiment with the settings and see what happens. (I love this digital lark, I can just fire away and no big film and processing costs.)

[GadgetRick]

If you're shooting RAW, just set your WB to Auto and fix it in pp. Very easy to do there and will save you the time of trying to match your WB on location.

[Vagebond]

Originally Posted by GadgetRick

If you're shooting RAW, just set your WB to Auto and fix it in pp. Very easy to do there and will save you the time of trying to match your WB on location.

Ah, there's the second school of thought: take pictures and take care of everything in post production.
Personally, I think it's important to know what your camera can do for you, whether you shoot RAW or JPG. Only then can you make an informed decision whether to spend more time with the camera or more with the computer. Just my humble opinion

Whatever you decide, Henry, enjoy your photography.