Grrrrrrr!!!

Khaos

Am I the only one who's pissed that the lite ring for a Canon Macro 100 costs almost as much as the damn lens itself?:pissed

For that price anything I shoot, no matter how bad I mess it up by choosing the wrong aperture, shutter speed, hell, even if I pick the worst subject in the world to shoot, it should come out looking fantastic.

Seriously, can someone justify why that thing is so damn expensive?

John Mueller

Can you say Canon:D

David_S85

Khaos wrote:

Am I the only one who's pissed that the lite ring for a Canon Macro 100 costs almost as much as the damn lens itself?:pissed

For that price anything I shoot, no matter how bad I mess it up by choosing the wrong aperture, shutter speed, hell, even if I pick the worst subject in the world to shoot, it should come out looking fantastic.

Seriously, can someone justify why that thing is so damn expensive?

I feel your pain. The MR14-EX? That the one?

Why not make your own?
http://www.photoprojects.net/index8.html

...of course, it won't have TTL metering, or anything fancy, and you'll probably need to re-white balance in post.

dragon300zx

They have lots of overhead therefor need lots of capitol. Your capitol, andy's capitol, my capitol, over 505% of dgrins capitol actually. Where was I when this company was getting started.

ian408

You have some alternatives to the Canon ring flash. Konica/Minolta,
Elinchrom, etc. But they're all about the same price. Some more
expensive than the Canon.

Then there's a Phoenix listed at $89.00. Never tried it and don't know
if it works but it does say it's for EOS and does TTL.

I've got the Canon version and am reasonably happy with it.

Ian

luckyrwe

Khaos wrote:

Am I the only one who's pissed that the lite ring for a Canon Macro 100 costs almost as much as the damn lens itself?:pissed

You sound like the Rolls Royce owner who balks at the $400 oil changes.

gus

Ive had a look at these light rings & i recon i will have a go at making my own from LED's.

DoctorIt

You can always go to Target and get a 1.5 million candlepower spotlight for $35. Comes in handy around the house too.

pathfinder

Humungus wrote:

Ive had a look at these light rings & i recon i will have a go at making my own from LED's.

I'll be very interested in your success in this endeavour 'gus. I have the little LED ringlite for the Nikon CoolPix 995 and never found it very useful for macro. The light level from the Canon electronic flash ringlites is a lot brighter than you will get from LEDs I suspect, but I could be wrong of course. ANd even the Canon MR-14EX is not a bright as I would prefer frequently. I wish I had ponied up for the hotter twin light version, but was put off by the price too. How often have we bought cheaper tools to save some money in life and regretted it later.

Jekyll & Hyde

J: Hi Khaos.

H: What will you be shooting with the ringlight?

J: Have you used flash much? In manual?

H: What flash(es) do you have now?

Thanks,
J&H

Khaos

Jekyll & Hyde wrote:

J: Hi Khaos.

H: What will you be shooting with the ringlight?

J: Have you used flash much? In manual?

H: What flash(es) do you have now?

Thanks,
J&H

Mr. Stevenson,

I will be ordering the Sigma 500 Super for my regular flash. As to what I will be shooting? Everything and anything. I'm just trying to figure out if it's a $450 need. No, I have not used flash much.

fish

Jekyll & Hyde wrote:

J: Hi Khaos.

H: What will you be shooting with the ringlight?

J: Have you used flash much? In manual?

H: What flash(es) do you have now?

Thanks,
J&H

okay, this is odd.


funny, but odd.


I can't wait to see what yer gonna come up with next. Say, do you know a guy named Maripito?

Jekyll & Hyde

macro soft box lighting

Khaos wrote:

I will be ordering the Sigma 500 Super for my regular flash. As to what I will be shooting? Everything and anything. I'm just trying to figure out if it's a $450 need. No, I have not used flash much.

J: I'd give the Sigma a try first for your macro shots. It looks very versatile and has a great power range.

H: Since you don't have any really pressing need for 360 degree even illumination (like medical/dental photography or coin collection documentation), I think you might find the Sigma quite suitable for general macro shooting (with a couple of mods).

J: Get yourself something like the Lumiquest Big Bounce, and shoot either camera-mounted, or better yet off-camera.

H: I built a couple of homemade mini softboxes for my flash (Sunpak 383). A small 6 x 6" one for on-camera flash, and a larger 9 x 12" for use off-camera. I even made one for my little in-camera flash. Just some foamcore and a suitable diffuser material. Less than $5 each.

J: I really like the results and the control I get. The resultant lighting ratio is about perfect for my tastes. Enough contrast so that the picture isn't so flat, yet it eliminates the harsh shadows.

H: So give the Sigma a try when you get it. You may find that the $450 is better spent elsewhere. Here's a dragon shot with the 383 on-camera (and diffuser).
J&H

wxwax

Mr. B. Mr. Interlocutor?

Mr. I. Yes, Mr. Bones?

Mr. B. Do you have a photograph of your homemade softboxes?

Khaos

luckyrwe wrote:

You sound like the Rolls Royce owner who balks at the $400 oil changes.

Let's see, $1600 camera, $460 lens, $450 flash. Flash is 22% of the cost of the camera and lens.

The new Rolls Royce Phantom is $320,000. 22% would make that a $70,400 oil change. Yeah, I'd balk.

BridgeCity

Jekyll & Hyde wrote:

J: I'd give the Sigma a try first for your macro shots. It looks very versatile and has a great power range.

H: Since you don't have any really pressing need for 360 degree even illumination (like medical/dental photography or coin collection documentation), I think you might find the Sigma quite suitable for general macro shooting (with a couple of mods).

J: Get yourself something like the Lumiquest Big Bounce, and shoot either camera-mounted, or better yet off-camera.

H: I built a couple of homemade mini softboxes for my flash (Sunpak 383). A small 6 x 6" one for on-camera flash, and a larger 9 x 12" for use off-camera. I even made one for my little in-camera flash. Just some foamcore and a suitable diffuser material. Less than $5 each.

J: I really like the results and the control I get. The resultant lighting ratio is about perfect for my tastes. Enough contrast so that the picture isn't so flat, yet it eliminates the harsh shadows.

H: So give the Sigma a try when you get it. You may find that the $450 is better spent elsewhere. Here's a dragon shot with the 383 on-camera (and diffuser).
J&H

Umm....

Nice shot! Why can't MY macro do that??

Mitchell

Khaos wrote:

Am I the only one who's pissed that the lite ring for a Canon Macro 100 costs almost as much as the damn lens itself?:pissed

For that price anything I shoot, no matter how bad I mess it up by choosing the wrong aperture, shutter speed, hell, even if I pick the worst subject in the world to shoot, it should come out looking fantastic.

Seriously, can someone justify why that thing is so damn expensive?

I certainly don't want to justify why Canon's price is so high on this item. I suspect the reason stems from the fact that this is truly a specialty item that is not purchased in large quantities. How many photographers actually need the illumination provided by a ring flash?
I personally use a Nikon ring flash, but I take a lot of photos in people's mouths for medical reasons and nothing else will provide that kind of illumination.
You may want to experiment with using your existing flash off camera and aimed at your macro subject.

mitch

wxwax

Mitchell wrote:

I take a lot of photos in people's mouths

How do you get in there?

Mitchell

wxwax wrote:

How do you get in there?

Well, I am very tiny and just climb in when the patient looks the other...

Wait a minute, I can't tell you all of the secrets I learned in medical school!!

Seriously, the mouth is a deep, dark hole which can only be properly illuminated for photographs with a ring flash.

mitch

Jekyll & Hyde

soft box homemade for macro

fish wrote:

I can't wait to see what yer gonna come up with next. Say, do you know a guy named Maripito?

J: Hmmm. No.

H: Is he a forum member?

Khaos wrote:

Mr. Stevenson,

J: Ooops. Missed that the first time around.

H: Is he a forum member?

wxwax wrote:

Mr. B. Mr. Interlocutor?

Mr. I. Yes, Mr. Bones?

Mr. B. Do you have a photograph of your homemade softboxes?

J: Why yes Mr. Tambo.

H: I'll produce a facsimile forthright.




Yes, that's a kitchen utensil for a handle.

BridgeCity wrote:

Nice shot! Why can't MY macro do that??

J: Thanks BC. Your DReb and 100 Macro are indeed quite capable. If memory serves, I believe a 1:1 lens will allow a 22.5mm object to fill the frame.

H: I think all you need to throw into the mix would be flash. Flash will allow you to shoot at a very small aperture for greatest DOF, and it will all but eliminate camera shake, vibrations produced by mirror slap, as well as most subject movement (those bumblebee wings go sooo fast).

J: This leaves focus as the next biggest hurdle. I switch to manual focus and set it to min focal distance. I then rock the camera back and forth until the area that I desire comes into focus.

H: I shoot almost all of my macros handheld (gotta follow those darn bugs around y'know), but a tripod and macro focusing rail can be quite handy for static objects. A monopod can also be quite helpful. (You will learn to despise windy days!)

J: Once you start to get the shooting rythm down, then an attempt can be made to shoot using available light (start out on a bright sunny day). Sometimes fill flash can give you just enough of an edge, while retaining that wonderfully colorful background that only ambient light can provide.

H: I often like to shoot macros at night (some of my favorite subjects like to come out after dark). I attach a flashlight to my camera to act as a focus assist light (I still shoot using manual focus), and usually mount the flash right on camera for convenience (again, the small softbox is used).

J: So no matter the light conditions, screw that macro lens on, grab your flash, and head out to the garden!
J&H

Enoch

Great soft box! Would you mind sharing the dimensions?

Thanks

lark

J&H!!!!! smile6
Welcome to DGRin!
It's good to see both of you here!



Den

Jekyll & Hyde

Enoch wrote:

Great soft box! Would you mind sharing the dimensions?

J: Thanks Enoch. It was done on the cheap.

H: The most important component is the diffuser material. This was cut from a 3-ring binder that I found at a Staples office supply store (Storex model 1 1/2" Heavy Duty, sku 85442 52299). You can see your fingers through it, but not quite make out the fingerprints (I've searched high and low for just the right material). The face is actually 10 inches by 11.5 inches.

J: The "sides" of the pyramidal shape are 12 inches (foamcore - black on the outside, white on the inside). The opening is just large enough to fit the head of the 383 into. A velcro strap is used to secure the flash. Oh yeah, the handle is a stiff plastic pancake turner. It's all bound and wrapped with clear packaging tape (except the diffuser surface).

H: It can be a little hard at times handholding the camera with one hand, and directing the flash/softbox with the other. I have a couple of modified flash brackets with adjustable arms that I use sometimes. It's a must when using dual flashes.

J: The light it provides is very soft and even. It works well when backlighting (with the flash just outside of the frame). I use the 383 in manual mode and set the power from about 1/2 to 1/16, depending on the flash to subject distance (and the subject and its immediate surroundings).

H: This shot is at about a 4:1 equiv macro ratio, with the 383 and large diffuser. The large diffuser is pretty good at keeping the highlights from blowing out too much.
J&H

lark wrote:

J&H!!!!!

Welcome to DGRin!
It's good to see both of you here!

J: Hey there Den. Good to see you too.

H: How's the beast (1Ds MkII) been treating you?
J&H

Enoch

THANK YOU! Now to bye Canons 100mm Macro lens.

gubbs

J & H

the macros are fantastic. I feel inspired!

Thanks, both of you thumb

pathfinder

Jekyll & Hyde wrote:

J: Hmmm. No.

H: Is he a forum member?


J: Ooops. Missed that the first time around.

H: Is he a forum member?


J: Why yes Mr. Tambo.

H: I'll produce a facsimile forthright.




Yes, that's a kitchen utensil for a handle.


J: Thanks BC. Your DReb and 100 Macro are indeed quite capable. If memory serves, I believe a 1:1 lens will allow a 22.5mm object to fill the frame.

H: I think all you need to throw into the mix would be flash. Flash will allow you to shoot at a very small aperture for greatest DOF, and it will all but eliminate camera shake, vibrations produced by mirror slap, as well as most subject movement (those bumblebee wings go sooo fast).

J: This leaves focus as the next biggest hurdle. I switch to manual focus and set it to min focal distance. I then rock the camera back and forth until the area that I desire comes into focus.

H: I shoot almost all of my macros handheld (gotta follow those darn bugs around y'know), but a tripod and macro focusing rail can be quite handy for static objects. A monopod can also be quite helpful. (You will learn to despise windy days!)

J: Once you start to get the shooting rythm down, then an attempt can be made to shoot using available light (start out on a bright sunny day). Sometimes fill flash can give you just enough of an edge, while retaining that wonderfully colorful background that only ambient light can provide.

H: I often like to shoot macros at night (some of my favorite subjects like to come out after dark). I attach a flashlight to my camera to act as a focus assist light (I still shoot using manual focus), and usually mount the flash right on camera for convenience (again, the small softbox is used).

J: So no matter the light conditions, screw that macro lens on, grab your flash, and head out to the garden!
J&H

Very informative JK - One thing I missed, if you described it, is the connection of the flash to the triggering mechanism of your camera. Is the hand held flash being triggered by the light emitted from the camera body flash or is it wired with the OEM flash extension cord?

I have used both methods, but for macro, the OEM extension cord seems to give more control to me - at least if you are using the OEM flash units - Canon, Nikon etc.

Very nice macro shots - sharp and with great color and tonality.

Jekyll & Hyde

Portion of thread moved...
J: The softbox portion of this thread has been relocated to the "Theory, technique, and how-to" forum.
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=7868

H: Catch up with you there.
J&H

ps. Don't want to keep stepping all over Khaos' thread. :curtsey

USAIR

Links
Heres some ideas for macro

http://davidweikel.com/E10_samples/closeup_flash/closeflash.shtml

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=1858372

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=1836435

Might help

Fred

ian408

USAIR wrote:

Heres some ideas for macro

http://davidweikel.com/E10_samples/closeup_flash/closeflash.shtml

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=1858372

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=1836435

Might help

Fred

That first linky is a great one. It details how to build a macro light setup
using foamcore and an shoe-mount flash.

Nice find Fred!

Ian