Sure I use it. Its a pretty ok effect. Eats about 3/4 stop of power. Effect is ok but not like the power of a real ringflash. But consindering what it is it works better than I thought it would.
I saw this item at a camera show in Carson Ca the guy was selling it for $125
I tried it by fitting it over my 580ex and it seemed ok, but I am not a macro person
the light from the flash is what makes it work and as was stated you lose about 1/2 to 3/4 stop. Adorama wants $300? it didn't look like $300 worth to me.
Curt: I think you may have this confused with another product.
This is not a macro - ring flash. Those actually have the bulb in them, and are pretty small, and not very powerful. I think this is designed to use a lot of power, and to be used as a main light for things like fashion photography.
personally, i think it's a rip off-it's a simple adapter...for $300-if ring flash is that important, i'd save up for one from AB-you could also check in the lighting forum to see if anyone has a sample image with it-just my two cents, j-i'd hate to see you waste your money
radioblurs wrote:
personally, i think it's a rip off-it's a simple adapter...for $300-if ring flash is that important, i'd save up for one from AB-you could also check in the lighting forum to see if anyone has a sample image with it-just my two cents, j-i'd hate to see you waste your money
That youtube video is a frig'n joke. Lets see... do I want to shoot images in my studio at ISO 200 with a real ring light, or at ISO 2500 with my speed light and a piece of overpriced plastic?
I can't believe the guy who made the video thinks its acceptable to compare the two products the way he did.
Wow. So he claimed to be trying to keep everything the same between the cameras (in the youtube video)...but not only was the ISO wayyy different, but the poses were different in the comparisons. That is the biggest problem. He's comparing the quality of light between photos where the light is behaving differently because its hitting different parts of the girls body.
