As it is my first post in this forum let me give you a bit of info.
Background: I mostly shoot macro handheld (my tripod mostly stays at home) and in natural light. I do it for many years and I think this is not going to change anytime soon.
Current gear: 40D, 580EX, 10-22, 17-55, 60/2.8, 135/2, 300/4 IS, Mamiya 120/4 macro (1:1), Mamiya 35/3.5 (via Mirex TS adapter), EF12 II, 1.4X Kenko TC, Gitzo 1541, RRS BH25.
Future gear: 7D, 100/2.8 IS.
Favorite macro subjects: Mostly still life.
Problem: Sometimes the natural light is not enough.
General solution: Buy a ringflash i.e. 14EX or 24EX or 140DG. However, there are 3 "slight" problems with buying these obvious solutions: Size, weight and cost. Combine these with the fact that I will need it only rarely and that I don't like to carry much gear and they quickly become irrelevant.
Pinpoint solution: Buy a cheap ringflash. I searched e-bay and found two that may fit my needs. I like the F170 idea as I can have all my flash controls and I like the DSLR67 idea as it will enable me not to carry my 580EX at all.
Question: Have any of you tried either? If so, please share your experience with me.
Not kidding. I just went and bought a pack of these bowls today. I have all kinds of strobes, brackets, extensions, you name it, I got it, except for a ringlight or twin flash. And not going to buy one of those until I prove my macro skill level to myself. So give this a try it just might work.
It's a very original idea but I want something that can be easily packed and unpacked i.e. a minimum of robustness is needed.
I must say I really like the idea of using the build-in flash rather the 580EX. Thus, if there's a similar product to the F170 that will attach to the build-in flash it will be ideal.
Honestly I have no experience with either solution. But the DSLR67 is an LED light source and it won't give you the motion stopping power of a flash -something that might be necessary in low light until you get that IS macro lens.
Yakim Peled wrote:
But why? After all, both add light. What's the difference between a constant one (LED) fo a flashing one?
Happy shgooting,
Yakim.
A constant light source is like shooting in weak sunlight and the shutter speed will determine if you get a sharp photo.
The pulse of light that a flash produces is often measured in thousands of a second. Pulse the light fast enough and you can actually freeze a balloon in mid pop...
Dalantech wrote:
A constant light source is like shooting in weak sunlight and the shutter speed will determine if you get a sharp photo.
The pulse of light that a flash produces is often measured in thousands of a second. Pulse the light fast enough and you can actually freeze a balloon in mid pop...
So it's more about the duration and not intensity?
I know that. What I meant to say is that to the best of my understanding you were saying that a pulsing light is better than a constant one. What I didn't really understand is why you think so.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I know that. What I meant to say is that to the best of my understanding you were saying that a pulsing light is better than a constant one. What I didn't really understand is why you think so.
Because that really short pulse can freeze motion. A constant light source relies on the speed of the shutter, and with an LED light you're not going to get really fast shutter speeds without shooting at low Fstops or high ISOs...
