What's new

Your current GAS list? (1 Viewer)

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,923
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
I've been itching to find ways to use some of the great artificial lighting stuff that's available these days. I have some lighting goodies on the way, and if they do what they're supposed to, I'll post some pics in the next week or two.

In the meantime, I'd been curious about beauty rings/soft boxes, like the kind of funky and awkward one from Fotodiox. It seemed like a decent way to get a beauty light without spending a ton of money. Then it occurred to me it could also be a great main/fill source for macro. So, it arrived today and I just tried it with my SB-910 and 70-180 Micro Nikkor (which Sam will NEVER get his hands on) and here's a sample photo. This is at 78mm full frame (crop sensor camera) at f/11. My main concern was how much light loss there would be and if I'd actually be able to shoot at small apertures for macro. I'm pushing the power limit of the flash here, and TTL is totally weird. I had to set it to overexpose as much as 3 stops to get the proper exposure. I have zero experience with TTL, so I don't know if that's unusual.

The soft, all around light is perfect for macro and much nicer looking than a traditional macro ring flash. I expect it would be great, dialed down a bit, for fill in daylight, which would allow you to stop down more and/or shoot further away. This is 100% ring flash. No usable ambient light.

_DSC4912.jpg
 
Last edited:

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,923
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Did everybody leave?

My latest lighting goodies arrived today. The weather's been bad all day, so I was only able to give them a trial run in the warehouse at work. I got (2) Yongnuo YN560-IV flashes and a controller. I guess I've had my head in the sand, because I don't know how I missed out on these. They're purely manual (as in no auto exposure anything at all) flashes, but there's a shoe mount radio controller that lets you trigger them as well as control their power level and zoom. I've been messing with them most of the day and haven't had a single glitch.

I'm anxious to try them out on location in daylight with softboxes or umbrellas. I was suspicious about their power rating, but I tested them with a flash meter and they come within 1/3 stop of the maximum power of my Nikon SB910. Still, to compete with daylight, I'll need at least a couple more units. The upside is that for the price of one SB910 you can get seven(!) YN560-IVs and the 560TX controller.
 

Mike Frezon

Moderator
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2001
Messages
60,690
Location
Rexford, NY
I'm listening, John! :D

I don't always know what you guys are talking about, but I figure if I keep listening, I might pick up some useful info. :P

I need to pick up a very basic lighting kit sometime (all I have now is my on-camera flash unit). And I need to take some portraits of my dogs and of some products for my wife's blog. We have green and white backdrops and frame. Now I need to add some lighting. I've scoped out some kits with either umbrellas or soft boxes but am not sure which way to go.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,923
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Mike, I've always used soft boxes for products. Umbrellas have the benefit of being less expensive and more portable. Flash lighting is more complex once you get past TTL, which doesn't give the control I want. Plus, I still have flash meters. I'd recommend you look into some of the "hot" light sets that are available. They aren't really "hot" anymore, since they use CFLs. The benefit to those is they are reasonably priced, and you can actually see the lighting. You just have to be around AC.
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
18,863
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
I'm still around, too, John. I am just listening, as artificial lighting isn't an area I have delved into much. I mainly shoot landscapes and wildlife. I just have a couple of Speedlites that get used on camera for family events.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,923
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
I have been on a spending spree. Just having fun. I need a lighter tripod. My main one is the previous version of the Manfrotto 475B. It's actually a little bigger than the 475B and the model # changed. It's great, but it's a stinking tank. The MY055XPRO3 and the MHXPRO3W head look very nice. I wish the legs extended to 6" higher, but I remember having a previous version of it, and it was decent enough. It's less than half the weight and even though it won't quite extend to eye level for me, the 475B is just not fun to carry.
 
Last edited:

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
18,863
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
I don't like this thread cause you guys make me spend teh monies!

Glad we could help. :lol:

I've been pretty good lately. The only items I have purchased this year are a new camera strap and a few center pinch lens caps to replace the old edge style I still had on some older lenses. I do not have any plans to buy anything before our next couple of trips -- our normal spring visit to Myrtle Beach and a summer trip to Michigan's Upper Peninsula along with Mackinac Island and Isle Royale.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,923
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
I've pretty much decided that it's time to upgrade/update some tripod equipment. One new set of legs and new heads for everything else, including putting one on the monopod. It's about time I had a universal quick-release system, and the Manfrotto RC2 appears to be the one. I hesitated far too long to give up my Gitzo heads, some of which date back to the early '80s. Manfrotto used to make crappy heads, which is why all of mine are Gitzo, but they seem to have really improved. I understand Manfrotto bought Gitzo somewhere along the line, which is probably why their heads have improved so much.
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
18,863
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
I never cared for Manfrotto's quick release system, but I have not looked at them for many years. I am quite happy with the Arca Swiss compatible QR system. I can easily get accessories, such as L brackets or a Kirk tripod foot for my Canon 100-400L II lens, and the mount is solid and easy to connect/disconnect. Any reason you are not going the AS route, John?

My tripod is a Feisol carbon fiber model, and it compares favorably to an equivalent Gitzo model for less money. I also have an Induro carbon fiber monopod. My first CF tripod was Adorama's house brand -- Flashpoint. While it was quite sturdy, one of the twist locks broke after a couple of years. The Feisol has held up well. My ballhead is a PhotoClam, and it works very well for all my lenses except the 100-400L. It's okay there, but I could use the next model larger for a more solid platform for that larger lens. I do not shoot often with that lens on a tripod, though -- I use the monopod more.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,923
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
A lot of it has to do with cost. There are tripods out there that I might love, but holy smokes. I could spend $1,500-2,000 for a Really Right equivalent to the Manfrotto I just got for $370. I don;t doubt for a second that the Really Right is better, but there's no way I'm spending that. The only QR system I had seen personally is the one Manfrotto had 25-30 years ago, which I didn't like at all. I got looking at their new heads, and they just look really nice.

I have to admit, there are a few photo accessory companies I've been looking to since the late '70s, and they're the first place I go to when I'm looking for something. It's pretty clear to me that Manfrotto and Lowe Pro in particular are looked down at these days, but I've used their stuff for decades. I know that neither of them is exactly the same company they used to be, but I still look to them first. I decided on the Manfrotto RC2 QR simply because their heads, particularly the MHXPRO-3W, which just looks like a nice head, and it's very reasonably priced. I'm getting two of them. One for my current 475B legs and one for the 055 legs I ordered. I hope it's as nice as it looks.

Scott, those Feisol legs look really nice, but the ones I saw have the one feature I never liked about Gitzo, which is the twist tighten leg sections. I recognize that Manfrotto legs have never been built to take the beating that Gitzo has. That fact really gets obvious once you take Gitzo legs apart and see how parts and sections can be replaced, which usually wasn't an option with Manfrotto. In fact, Manfrotto leg sections have stoppers that can actually break if you let the leg drop freely until it stops, unless something in their design has changed. I learned that, because I did it myself.

Anyway, we'll see how I like this stuff. The one decision I went cheaper on is the head for my (Gitzo) monopod. I went with a rather inexpensive one intended for monopods that just has a basic forward/backward pivot. I might decide to go with a smaller ball head instead. I won't know until I try it.

Everything will have the same QR and I'll have a bunch of extra plates, so I'm looking forward to just leaving plates on the three lenses that have tripod mounts, so I can just grab one and snap it on a head. Like I said, all my heads now are Gitzo from a time when Gitzo didn't have any QR options, so just that will be a big improvement.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,923
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
BTW, HERE'S a video review of the leg/head combination I got as an option to the rather large, heavy 475B I already have. I also got that same head to put on the 475B legs I already have. That setup was $370 with two spare QR plates. that setup will still be a little below eye level for me, since I'm 6' 6". The 475B goes well above eye level and is rock solid, but it weighs a ton and I'm tired of carrying it around. I'll still keep it in the car, but I'll be glad to have a reasonable option that's less than half the weight.
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
18,863
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
Really Right Stuff all the things!

I have read only great things about RRS products and their support. I may splurge on a more heavy duty setup of theirs when I retire, but for now the Feisol + PhotoClam meets my needs. It's light weight for travel, but sturdy enough for all my landscape shooting. If I ever got into macro shooting it would probably not work well, as the Feisol cannot be adjusted real low to the ground, but that's not a requirement right now.
 

Scott Merryfield

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 16, 1998
Messages
18,863
Location
Mich. & S. Carolina
Real Name
Scott Merryfield
Scott, those Feisol legs look really nice, but the ones I saw have the one feature I never liked about Gitzo, which is the twist tighten leg sections. I recognize that Manfrotto legs have never been built to take the beating that Gitzo has. That fact really gets obvious once you take Gitzo legs apart and see how parts and sections can be replaced, which usually wasn't an option with Manfrotto. In fact, Manfrotto leg sections have stoppers that can actually break if you let the leg drop freely until it stops, unless something in their design has changed. I learned that, because I did it myself.

Anyway, we'll see how I like this stuff. The one decision I went cheaper on is the head for my (Gitzo) monopod. I went with a rather inexpensive one intended for monopods that just has a basic forward/backward pivot. I might decide to go with a smaller ball head instead. I won't know until I try it.

John, I actually prefer the twist lock style of legs, so that wasn't an issue for me with Feisol. It's a matter of personal preference, and I realize lots of people prefer the lever locks. There really is no wrong answer for tripods, as long as they are sturdy enough for the load and hold up well over time. I went with Feisol over Gitzo and Really Right Stuff for the same reason you are going with Manfrotto -- price.

I have a similar monopod head as yours. It's a Manfrotto model that pivots front and back, but it came as part of a kit through B&H with a Kirk Arca Swiss clamp instead of the proprietary Manfrotto QR. I have never felt that I needed anything else. I only use the monopod with my 100-400L lens, for which I bought a Kirk Arca Swiss style tripod foot to replace the foot Canon provided (which would have required attaching an AS plate).

That video review looks nice, John. The tripod looks very sturdy with flexible positioning, although it would be too heavy for my use. I pack mine in my checked luggage, where every pound counts these days the way airlines are charging for checked luggage.
 
Last edited:

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,923
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Scott, the one reason I probably should have gone with a ball head on the monopod is so I can shoot verticals with lenses that don't have tripod mounts. Of course, if you only use the monopod with your 100-400, then that doesn't matter for you. I sort of decided at the last minute to get the monopod head, and it's only $45, so no great loss.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,923
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Just for grins, I thought I'd show a couple of the tripods I used professionally. The one I'm a little tired on carrying around is the Manfrotto 475B. I'll still use it, and I'm putting one of the 3-Way head on it that's in the video I linked a couple posts back. The model I have is a 3236, which according to the specs is actually about 3" longer than this one when collapsed. It's definitely taller, because It goes well over my head when fully extended. Probably around 8'.

The tripod that makes me chuckle is the one I used with my view camera. I think the model number on it is 3251, but it appears to be the same as This One, and I have a massive, Gitzo Cine head on it. By Cine head, I don't mean a video head, but one designed for 35mm feature film camera use. It has a double mount, so I would use two mounting blocks on the view camera's focusing rail to get the camera rock solid. A lot of the time I'd put a couple sand bags on the leg struts to make the entire thing rock solid. Once it was all set up, the whole thing probably weighed 70-80 lbs. That thing goes up to something like 13'. There were times I had it up that high while I stood on a ladder to operate the camera.
 

Sam Posten

Moderator
Premium
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 30, 1997
Messages
33,674
Location
Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
Real Name
Sam Posten
As I get older I am actually a fan of having a super light tripod for running around and having a REALLY heavy one for video and astro. The middle not so much =)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum statistics

Threads
356,808
Messages
5,123,533
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top