I haven't used a Rayflash yet, but its definitely on my list of things to rent and see how I like it. For changing situations (especially weddings) I like the idea of a TTL compatible ringflash solution, plus the light weight.
I've got an ABR800 ring flash - and besides either a power pack or being tethered to an outlet, its not that portable.
I bought a Strobies beauty dish for my 580EX II. I was surprised when using it on camera how much it resembled a ring flash. Or course you can use it off camera. It give a soft bleed off of light and a halo effect, except a much larger one.
I just bought a Coco also. When it gets in, I'll post a couple from it.
As far as knock offs go, it's perfectly legal as long as you change the product in some way that makes the new product unique. Someone had the idea that they could make a product just as good as the others for 25% of the cost. That's how capitalism works, unless you work on Wall street. Then the modus operendi is called government protected trusts, like manipulating markets so the few who have inside information can make millions, while the rest of us lose millions.
dwdallam wrote:
...As far as knock offs go, it's perfectly legal as long as you change the product in some way that makes the new product unique.
That's a rather simplistic understanding of patent law. You can't simply add or subtract from a product's design to make it "unique." It must be substantially different in design or application.
For example, if I were to copy the engine from a Ford Mustang and then put that engine in a submarine, Ford could still sue me for patent infringement on patented parts of the engine.
BrianO wrote:
That's a rather simplistic understanding of patent law. You can't simply add or subtract from a product's design to make it "unique." It must be substantially different in design or application.
For example, if I were to copy the engine from a Ford Mustang and then put that engine in a submarine, Ford could still sue me for patent infringement on patented parts of the engine.
Yes that is true, but there are tons of V8 engines out there, other than Ford, that don't infringe on Ford's V8 patents. That's my point. You think patents are so strict that no one could ever have built a new V8 engine since Henry Ford's? That would trample innnovation and destroy technological progress. SO I stand by my "simplistic" idea.
dwdallam wrote:
...there are tons of V8 engines out there, other than Ford, that don't infringe on Ford's V8 patents. That's my point. You think patents are so strict that no one could ever have built a new V8 engine since Henry Ford's?
No, I don't think that at all. However at the time those engines were designed there were substantial differences in the designs (substantial enough for the patent attorneys, at any rate) to not infringe.
In looking at the Coco ring-flash adapter (an admittedly cursory look), I don't see any substantially different design in the light-guiding portion of the device.
Try looking at the angle of the flash ring to the camera. Similar isn't nearly the same. The block of a V8 Chevy "looks" identical to teh block of a V8 Ford, untill you look closely, sometimes with a micrometer. The angle of the pistons may be 1 degree difference, or the cylinder bores may be .5mm shorter, etc.
dwdallam wrote:
Try looking at the angle of the flash ring to the camera. Similar isn't nearly the same.
Since the patent covers the internal light-guiding technology, and not the angle of projection vis-à-vis the lens axis, your point is ...well ...pointless.
It is clear to me that you have little understanding of patents and patent law, or you are just trolling. I'm done with this.
BrianO wrote:
Since the patent covers the internal light-guiding technology, and not the angle of projection vis-à-vis the lens axis, your point is ...well ...pointless.
It is clear to me that you have little understanding of patents and patent law, or you are just trolling. I'm done with this.
Amazon would not legally be able to sell them if they were copies. That would be like selling fake Rolex watches on Amazon. Get a life.
dwdallam wrote:
Amazon would not legally be able to sell them if they were copies. That would be like selling fake Rolex watches on Amazon. Get a life.
While I suppose Amazon could pre-emptively choose to stop carrying the product even before a judgement is issued, their policy may be that until a cease and desist order has been issued they do not unilaterally penalize a manufacturer.
All that said, this could simply be a fairly creative marketing strategy on the part of the makers of the RayFlash...
Provide one OFFICIAL version at the premium price that MANY professional photographers are likely to pay because of their respect for I.P. ... and provide a discounted "knockoff" at a smaller margin to also pick up the lower price point clients. Spread rumors that the knockoff is in fact a KNOCKOFF to further incetivize the higher-market buyers to buy the expensive version but don't go as far as suing yourself
BrianO wrote:
In looking at the Coco ring-flash adapter (an admittedly cursory look), I don't see any substantially different design in the light-guiding portion of the device.
... Since the patent covers the internal light-guiding technology, and not the angle of projection vis-à-vis the lens axis, your point is ...well ...pointless.
It is clear to me that you have little understanding of patents and patent law, or you are just trolling. I'm done with this.
So, you've taken a cursory look at the Coco, and assume that the internal light-guiding technology is the same as in the Ray flash?
although, I suppose you're just arguing against his argument. Because if he had said look at the internal light-guiding technology and see if the angles etc are slightly different, you might have been ok with that?
I don't think you understand that if it were a 1-1 copy the manufacturers of the real flash would be ALL OVER IT.
B&H
Adorama
and many others are also selling it.
I doubt any of you have actually disassembled the Coco, Ray, and Orbis and measured the differences. Which brings up another point. If the Coco is an illegal knock-off, why isn't the Ray Flash a knock of of the Orbis (or whichever came first)?
It's hard to establish coherent communication with those who live in a world where everything is a conspiracy.
although the Ray Flash and the Orbis serve the same function, they go about it a different manner, are mounted differently and I'm sure have different internal light guiding technology (or are at least different enough).
The Coco seems to be a much more direct knock-off.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but what is the difference between an OFF CAMERA ring flash and a beauty dish? I understand that the point of a ring flash is to get it as close to on axis as possible, but just curious about the latter...
