Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2010 · MR-14EX vs MT-24EX? and why?
  
 
genefixer
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · MR-14EX vs MT-24EX? and why?


In the market for a dedicated "macro" flash. Have the newer EF 100mm f2.8 IS macro lens. Had a ring flash several years ago, gave up on macro work but more interested in it now.

Would appreciate the pros and cons from those of you that have used both flashes. I know there is a FM review section on both these flash units but would like some more info before purchasing one or the other. Now too worried about the difference in price.

thanks

Mike



Jun 04, 2010 at 06:10 PM
GC5
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · MR-14EX vs MT-24EX? and why?



Mike, you might want to ask this on the Macro forum also, as there are several very good shooters over there that don't frequent this subforum all that often, but use Canon gear.




Jun 04, 2010 at 06:21 PM
ClintCritchlow
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · MR-14EX vs MT-24EX? and why?


I use the MX-14 and like it for ease of use. I want the MX-24 however.

MX-14 is easier to use, just put it on the front and start shooting. With the MX-24, you need to adjust the lights for your target. This adjusting lets you have more control and you can get some side light to get your subject to "pop" more vs. the flat light of the MX-14.

I also want the MX-24 to trigger the modeling light by pressing the shutter button halfway instead of having to press a button on the back of the MX-14. The MX-14 light always times out on me and having to press the button to turn it back on messes with my flow.



Jun 04, 2010 at 06:40 PM
gpop
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · MR-14EX vs MT-24EX? and why?


the twin flash allows for removal of each flash head (they have 1/4x20 threaded base), so you can place them where you like (within the range of the cables), and I think it also operates as a master trigger for other compatible flash heads. the new 100-is will require an attachment in order to mount the unit to the end of the lens. I assume this is true for the ringlight as well.


Jun 04, 2010 at 07:08 PM
sleibrand
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · MR-14EX vs MT-24EX? and why?


IMO, the big difference between the 2 is that the flash heads for the 24EX can be positioned anywhere within the range of the cables while the 14EX flash heads are fixed in place on the end of the lens.

Both units can act as a master and control additional flashes. I decided to save money and go with the 14EX. I can use my 420EX's if I want additional light from the side/rear/whatever.



Jun 04, 2010 at 07:36 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



WINN
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · MR-14EX vs MT-24EX? and why?


Each flash provides light it just depends what kind of light you want and how you want to use it. The MR-14EX is compact, for a ringlite, is at the end of the lens and allows the user to bring the light very near the subject being photographed. When used by itself the light emitted is very flat which helps eliminate shadows. This proves to be very useful for medical/dental (especially intra-oral) imaging or other detailed, very close-up work. This type of light doesn't allow you to show curves, contours and very subtle colors. You can increase the amount of shadows by increasing the ratio of one light to the other by using the buttons on the back of the shoe mounted control. I attaches to the lens by a spring mechanism on the flash head that fits into a groove on the lens. This groove already exists on the 100mm f/2.8 macro. If you put any sort of filter on the 100mm f/2.8 or if you use the "L" version you have to purchase the macro adapter ring that will allow for the flash head to mount on the lens.

The MT-24 EX are two small flash heads mounted on a bracket. It's bigger physically then the 14EX, but the heads are independent of each other and can be adjusted to give you much more creative types of lighting. I am very familiar with the 14EX because I use it every day. I haven't used the 24EX but have seen it being used. My assumption is that the 24EX bracket attaches to the camera lens the same way that the 14EX does so that you might not need the adapter ring for the regular 100mm but will need one for the "L" lens.

This doesn't mean that you can't be creative with the lighting from either flash because the true artist can do so much with whatever they are given BUT creative lighting is easier from the 24EX



Jun 04, 2010 at 08:01 PM
bsteels
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · MR-14EX vs MT-24EX? and why?


I opted for the 24 since it's a bit more powerful and a bit more flexible. Like the MT14, he 24 attaches directly to the 100mm macro (non-L), but you need the adapter for the new 100mm L. The 24 has harsh light though, and I always shoot with stofens on it. That said, I really love the twin flash unit.

I follow some good tips on Dalantech's blog too. He has compared both flashes in depth in the past also. The dedicated macro flash is the way to go for sure, no matter which one you pick - I always feel like I'm cheating - it makes lighting the macro shots so easy (by comparison).

http://nocroppingzone.blogspot.com/2007/08/mr-14ex-verses-mt-24ex.html

Cheers, Brad



Jun 07, 2010 at 02:51 AM
cgardner
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · MR-14EX vs MT-24EX? and why?


The rationale for light a flea is the same as lighting an elephant. Two components are needed: 1) off axis "key" light to create the 3D modeling with highlight and shadow, and; 2) a fill source to fit the range of the scene to the shorter range of the sensor.

The convention of putting a key light in front at 45 degrees evolved to meet the unique requirements of modeling human faces in a flattering way. That requires getting light into the recessed eye sockets and controlling how the sundial nose in between casts it's shadow. Most macro subjects don't have recessed eyes with a sundial nose between them and don't need to be illuminated that way. To the contrary, the strongest illusion of 3D in a 2D photo is created by shooting into the shadow side of an object, with the key light behind and to the side at about 135 degrees from the camera axis with fill coming from the direction of the camera.

Flat fill is ideal because sideway fill cast shadows and where there are fill shadow and also no key light there will be no detail. Because lens - subject distances can be quite small a problem with Macro is how to get fill between the lens and the subject without the lens casting a shadow. That's not as much of a problem with a long macro like the 100mm.

SLR ring flash was originally designed for shadowless illumination when documenting medical / dental procedures inside body cavities and mouths, but a single fiat light isn't the ideal for creative photography. However the MR-14 is an ideal fill source in a two light scenario because it can serve as a Master for a conventional Canon EX flash used as key light behind and to the side of the subject.

The MR-24 is a self-contained two light solution which is ideal because many macro situations don't lend themselves to using an off camera flash on a stand as key light. But the default configuration will cross light subjects. Cross lighting can be used effectively, but can result in unfilled voids where neither light reaches.

If you already have Canon flashes here's a DIY alternative to consider. I already owned a pair of 580ex flashes and when I decided to try macro with a set of extension tubes I devised a DIY macro solution which would give me fill from the just over the top of the lens with my 580ex master flash mounted in the hotshoe, used with a second off camera 580ex as key light. See it here: LINK

Used by itself the diffuser on the camera creates lighting with natural looking downward modeling. The modeling looks natural because natural light comes from overhead most of the time and our brain is programmed to recognize shape based on contrast patterns of shadow and highlight created from overhead sources. Adding the off camera flash from behind and the side adds modeling which enhanced the illusion of 3D.




Jun 07, 2010 at 09:08 PM
n0b0
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · MR-14EX vs MT-24EX? and why?


bsteels wrote:
I opted for the 24 since it's a bit more powerful and a bit more flexible. Like the MT14, he 24 attaches directly to the 100mm macro (non-L), but you need the adapter for the new 100mm L. The 24 has harsh light though, and I always shoot with stofens on it. That said, I really love the twin flash unit.

I follow some good tips on Dalantech's blog too. He has compared both flashes in depth in the past also. The dedicated macro flash is the way to go for sure, no matter which one you pick - I
...Show more

Really? Tell that to some of the best lighters in macro forum like Remus and BrianV who don't use either the 14 or 24.

By how much does the Stofen increase the apparent light size of the 24 anyway?

If you want nice diffused lighting, I would suggest sticking with normal speedlight and just use off-camera flash bracket and a diffuser like Lumiquest Softbox.



Jun 08, 2010 at 01:32 AM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password