Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lighting Forum' started by Dave in Wales, Mar 31, 2015.
I have seen something like this before, so it's not a new or unique idea.
Think it might have been an Olympus item as well, although IIRC the Olympus one only had two light arms nt five.
How hard is it to just use defused flash?
Fibre optic lighting has been around for ages.
The Olympus thing was pretty cool. I had to sell mine though when I upgraded to my EM-10 . . . no viewfinder "port" to plug it into.
I was keen on this when it first popped up on reddit, but when the first videos showing it in action popped up it seemed to me it's far too big to be used on a small mirror less system.
If it could give me F/22 - F/32 at ISO 100 - 200 at a decent shutter speed on a moving subject, I would be interested, but somehow I doubt it
All the best.
f/22-f/32 on m4/3? Seems a bit far fetched.
Why is that, its all I use.
Nice, f/22 I get. I guess you use adapted lenses to go higher than f/22?
Canon FD 100-300 F/5.6L takes me to F/32 on the Oly E-M10, Panasonic G2 or the Sony NEX-7. Sometimes a 300 F/2.8L with bellows or ext tubes.
Hand held or with a tripod?
Always hand held and either a Sunpak DX-8R or a Sunpak 555 with diffusers. Can't stand tripods for macro work, a real pain for fast moving subjects. So the exposures are always a constant. ISO 100, 1/160, F/22 - F/32 and the flash unit is set on 1/2 power for the ring flash or 1/4 power for the 555. Once set, just fire away with no worries about settings. Some up there are just bright daylight though.
Lens on those particular shots are the Panasonic 45-200 with a Raynox DCR-250
And interestingly not suffering too much from refraction either, nice set of photo's as well.
Diffraction is something I've always ignored Paul, I let others worry and sweat over that, while I worry more about DOF at higher ratios.
Stacking would be the way to go, but not so much with breathing subjects and dead subjects don't appeal much. Managed to stack a few times on living subjects, but not often.
All the best Paul and yep, diffraction doesn't worry me too much to be honest.
The Sunpak is a ring flash isn't it? Has you tried an LED macro ring light? Is it powerful enough?
That's the issue with ring lights. Getting the F/22-F/32 at ISO 100. With a ring flash, no problem. I've never tried a ring light and mainly because of that reason. There might well be one out there that is capable of it, but give me a ring flash any day. I can see a use for them for sure, but not if you need those settings. Others don't need those settings though and those settings are a bit extreme I guess.
All the best and maybe someone in here knows about the ring lights and if they are capable ??
You will generally find that LED ring lights, although appearing to be bright when you look at them are not very bright when compared to even the cheapest ring flash. many only just give enough light for £5.6 @ 1/60sec @ISO800 which is not what you want when hand holding macro equipment. Even cheap old Ring Flash Units like the old Sunpak units could give you around f8 @ ISO200 with the effective speed of 1/1000sec
Its like the continuous light be are being encouraged to use over flash in studio Photography, some of these modern low energy lamps might be equivalent to 200 to 300 watts but that's nothing compared to what even a low cost studio flash unit can pop out. There is a reason why we used to use lamps that were rated over 1000 watts before studio flash came to the party.
Modern is not automatically better, sometimes the old stuff is better and sometimes much better.
Thanks Danny & Paul
I'll keep using flashes then, and will get a flexible macro flash bracket and "DIY" a small softbox.
I used to bounce the flash into a sheet of paper, the light was a bit harsh sometimes.