The Online Photographer

What a blessing that digital makes using a fully mechanical flash so easy. And that these no-name manufacturers are finally showing us how cheap the basic hardware of a flash is. Add exposure automation, and Nikon or Canon would charge $500 for this. That's a 2000% markup!

Dedicated flashes are probably among the key profit centers for the big camera makers. Generations of pro have been discouraged from system-switching by their four-figure investments in proprietary flashes. Products like this and my Youngyou (yeah, whatever) are very destabilizing devices.

Cheap as chips, as they say in the UK

... where chips are not that cheap!

...... and tripod heads ..... and L plates.

At the other end of the spectrum you could get a Leica SF64 Flash for $850. But it does have TTL! (Neither Amazon nor B&H has any user reviews so it may be that nobody has actually bought one.)

I have three of the neewer model. Best $100 on camera I have spent. Or is top nod going to an old Speedotron Blackline pack and heads. Digital makes it very easy to manually control flash and actually understand what is going on.

For hugh crawford:

I've been looking for a non-TTL auto flash too. I still have a couple old Vivitar 283s that sort of work, but they are about done. I ordered one of the Neewer flashes like this one, but immediately realized there is no auto flash control on it. After a lot of searching I found a Sunpak "auto 144D" and it is just about perfect. Non-TTL auto and in a good bit smaller package than a 283 that fits well on my Panasonic GX8. It's a pretty solid little unit and works just fine...just like the trusty Vivitar 283. Unfortunately it looks like Sunpak has quit making them and Amazon only has used ones available now.
https://www.amazon.com/SUNPAK-Sunpak-144d/dp/B00YLAMOMM

"So do you guys know of someone who could write those posts?"

Kirk Tuck, of the visualsciencelab, he has written books on the use of photographic lighting equipment. He is a great storyteller and expert on lighting.

"Mike replies: So do you guys know of someone who could write those posts?"

I'm sure you write that with tongue firmly planted in cheek! There's this fellow we know from Texas, who has written whole books on the topic. I think you could wheedle a few posts from him if you tried! And I agree it would be great to have posts on other photographic topics than cameras and lenses: lighting equipment and technique, ball-heads, tripods, printers, books, pool tables, Green Bay Packers, dogs, hip hop... No stop, stop!

Hi Mike, i learned a lot about lightning with that guy Neil van Niekerk

http://neilvn.com/tangents/about/contact/

Is that a beam of light from a flash or the beam from the smile on David Hobby's/Strobist's face? I can only think that the man who taught (teaches) so many people so generously about lighting with basic gear must be excited to know these are available.

I can't remember the number of times I've tried to explain to amateur photographers to at least give supplementary lighting a go, even just simple reflectors.

Unfortunately, all that I often get back in return is a retort that they don't want to go through such extra effort, they just want great shots taken in natural light using high ISO.

Then it becomes an issue that their camera is not good enough for their needs and that they have to get something better. They then start asking what camera is better.

I would agree that lighting is as an important element as pixels, lenses and resolution as someone noted above (and is a light (no pun intended) subject matter on this excellent site), however one can get carried away with artificial lighting like over photoshop post processing and overly HDR'd images.

Great work can be done with natural light, such as Lisa Holloway, http://ljhollowayphotography.com/
who only uses natural light for all her work all be it with post processing. Most of her work is one or two lenses, the primary being 200mm f/1.8 or f/2 Canon L which gives and renders her "signature" images.. She mostly shoots wide open. She seems to have built a business "brand" around her consistent same technique which by all accounts appear to be very successful.
Many of her pictures appear to have been shot with some artificial lights but not the case apparently.

Also Marion Ettlinger, http://www.marionettlinger.com/
A well know portrait photographer of book authors who apparently did Author portraits for books for over 30 years with only 35mm Pentaxs on tripod. She used 8 or 9 continually (In a cycle of being CLA'd and in use).
She always shot natural light as she wanted to keep her equipment spartan and simple. She was often quoted as saying "The less technical stuff you have, the more soothing it is to the subject"
Her shoots with an Author/subject would last about 5 hours and she would shoot around 12 rolls of film.
An article about her http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2003-11-19-ettlinger_x.htm

In any event, yes it is interesting that there are more options for simple in expensive lighting for modest budgets. A little bit of lighting for even a catch light in the eyes as Galen Rowell was wont to say goes a long way in a stronger image....

If you are looking for "Non-TTL Auto Flash",
Look for Thyristor Circuitry which is a flash mounted sensor and 'quenching' circuit that monitors light reflected from the subject, and acts quickly enough to 'quench' or turn off the flash based on an ISO you enter. There are still some flashes that have it available new.
Sort of a reflected light meter for flash.
Just be careful with old flashes, which may work fine but present damaging synch voltages to your camera. Same for some old studio flash. When in doubt, use one of these
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/245292-REG/Wein_W990560_Safe_Sync_Hot_Shoe_to.html#!

Don't listen to that Tuck guy. He's off buying weird and expensive LED panels. Down another rabbit hole for sure.