If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
GARY FONG LOVES THE 20D !
"Annika1980" wrote: On Jul 27, 9:42 am, Draco wrote: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82886503/original http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82886507 Not only are you a well versed in photography but a world class animal handler to boot. I can never get any of my cats to still long enough to focus the freakin lens. Do you anesthetize the litle guys so they pose for you or is it because you have been sticking a camera in their faces since they were little? hehe Whatever. Sometimes it helps to have an assistant. I had my wife hold Divot ... Hmm. Divot may work for fish, but I bet your CEO don't work so cheap. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
GARY FONG LOVES THE 20D !
Annika1980 wrote:
On Jul 27, 9:30 am, Tony Polson wrote: Given that this is an f/1.2 lens, and you had plenty of headroom in terms of increasing shutter speeds, why not use it wide open? One word answer: Flash. Longer answer: I wanted to make sure I had enough flash to light him up. Hence, I used Tv (Shutter Speed Priority) mode at the max sync speed of 1/250. Yes, I could have used high-speed sync, but that gives mixed results. OK, understood. Thanks. At least the bokeh at f/3.2 doesn't look too bad. With the strong sunlight you had, you could have re-positioned a human subject near a beam of sunlight coming through the foliage, and used a hand-held reflector to direct that light to fill in the shadows. I don't think that would be practicable with a cat, as the reflected light would be a major distraction, preventing you from getting the excellent shots that you did. The flash has the element of surprise, so the cat doesn't get distracted. I have tried hard to get high speed synch to work reliably, but even with a Leica M7 and Mecablitz 54 MZ-4i, the results are very variable at 1/500 and 1/1000 sec. It's a lot better at 1/250, which represents a more than two stop advantage over the normal 1/50 synch speed. That's because the slit in the horizontally-travelling focal plane shutter is four times wider than at 1/1000 sec, so variations in illumination are about four times less noticeable. However, the flash output is so reduced as to make the feature all but useless, except at short flash-to-subject distances. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
GARY FONG LOVES THE 20D !
Annika1980 wrote:
On Jul 27, 9:30 am, Tony Polson wrote: Given that this is an f/1.2 lens, and you had plenty of headroom in terms of increasing shutter speeds, why not use it wide open? One word answer: Flash. Longer answer: I wanted to make sure I had enough flash to light him up. Hence, I used Tv (Shutter Speed Priority) mode at the max sync speed of 1/250. Yes, I could have used high-speed sync, but that gives mixed results. This is what I question about this particular product for outdoor use. Like pointing the flash up and putting a business card or other reflector on it and then using it outdoors (when that is a technique more appropriate under a low ceiling) the Lightshere seems to be a device that would severely reduce flash output when used outdoors for diffusion that could be more efficiently obtained with a small softbox like the Westcott Micro Apollo or a bounce device like one of the Lumiquest products, or even one of the homemade devices such as the one at this link: http://super.nova.org/DPR/DIY01/ Those devices will reduce the efficiency of the flash as well, but at least they aren't directing a significant portion of the flash output at the sky, to the side and rear of the photograher. I saw a photographer a recent triathlon photographing runners with a Gary Fong Lightsphere on her camera. The nearest reflective surface above her was probably several thousand light years away! She had been using the same device for pre-race "party-pic" type shots, also shot under a cloudless sky. She must have gone through a lot of batteries. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
GARY FONG LOVES THE 20D !
"Annika1980" wrote in message oups.com... On Jul 27, 9:42 am, Draco wrote: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82886503/original http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/82886507 Not only are you a well versed in photography but a world class animal handler to boot. I can never get any of my cats to still long enough to focus the freakin lens. Do you anesthetize the litle guys so they pose for you or is it because you have been sticking a camera in their faces since they were little? hehe Whatever. Didn't you know? - Bret is a taxidermist by trade...... |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
GARY FONG LOVES THE 20D !
Eric Miller wrote:
This is what I question about this particular product for outdoor use. Like pointing the flash up and putting a business card or other reflector on it and then using it outdoors (when that is a technique more appropriate under a low ceiling) the Lightshere seems to be a device that would severely reduce flash output when used outdoors for diffusion that could be more efficiently obtained with a small softbox like the Westcott Micro Apollo or a bounce device like one of the Lumiquest products, or even one of the homemade devices such as the one at this link: http://super.nova.org/DPR/DIY01/ Those devices will reduce the efficiency of the flash as well, but at least they aren't directing a significant portion of the flash output at the sky, to the side and rear of the photograher. I think you have missed the point. More flash output is not needed here. The shot was perfectly exposed. What we were discussing was opening up the lens to f/1.2 to improve the rendition of the out of focus background highlights, which was harsh at f/9 and neutral at f/3.2. Bret's new Canon 85mm lens is justly renowned for its smooth background bokeh at f/1.2, so I asked why not open it up? Bret pointed out that the shutter speed was limited to 1/250 sec because he was using flash, and that the ambient light dictated the apertures. It had nothing whatsoever to do with flash output. Nevertheless, thank you for posting the link to the home-made bounce flash device. It looks interesting, but the idea is identical to that behind a proprietary device that has had protection from international patents for some years now. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
GARY FONG LOVES THE 20D !
Tony Polson wrote:
Nevertheless, thank you for posting the link to the home-made bounce flash device. It looks interesting, but the idea is identical to that behind a proprietary device that has had protection from international patents for some years now. It is of course a copy of the Lumiquest, which you mentioned. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
GARY FONG LOVES THE 20D !
On Jul 28, 7:09 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote: The bokeh in the first one is only half bad: the disks have bright edges (which is classic bad bokeh), but at least they're disks and not pentagons, as my Fuji GS645S produces. Sadly the 85/1.2 really isn't a stellar performer in the bokeh department. He would have definitely done much better with the 85/1.4 Nikkor and an adapter ring. Then again, he could have pulled this shot off with much better results if he had used the Larry Thong Lightbottle with this. http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/best_mates.htm Getting off topic now, but it is interesting to note that 16-9.net said this..... "So what have we learned? The fact that the Zeiss 21mm is the finest of its type is no surprise. What might come as a shock if you haven't scrutinised the MTF charts is that a healthy Canon 17-40mm f4 L is better than a Canon 16-35mm Mark I, and makes an evenly matched challenger to the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 for the title of 'best ultrawide zoom'." Full test here http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/canon...40vn1735a.html Cheers Rusty http://www.pixelpix.com.au http://blog.pixelpix.com.au |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
GARY FONG LOVES THE 20D !
On Jul 28, 7:22 am, Tony Polson wrote:
Eric Miller wrote: This is what I question about this particular product for outdoor use. Like pointing the flash up and putting a business card or other reflector on it and then using it outdoors (when that is a technique more appropriate under a low ceiling) the Lightshere seems to be a device that would severely reduce flash output when used outdoors for diffusion that could be more efficiently obtained with a small softbox like the Westcott Micro Apollo or a bounce device like one of the Lumiquest products, or even one of the homemade devices such as the one at this link: http://super.nova.org/DPR/DIY01/ Those devices will reduce the efficiency of the flash as well, but at least they aren't directing a significant portion of the flash output at the sky, to the side and rear of the photograher. I think you have missed the point. More flash output is not needed here. The shot was perfectly exposed. What we were discussing was opening up the lens to f/1.2 to improve the rendition of the out of focus background highlights, which was harsh at f/9 and neutral at f/3.2. Bret's new Canon 85mm lens is justly renowned for its smooth background bokeh at f/1.2, so I asked why not open it up? Bret pointed out that the shutter speed was limited to 1/250 sec because he was using flash, and that the ambient light dictated the apertures. It had nothing whatsoever to do with flash output. Nevertheless, thank you for posting the link to the home-made bounce flash device. It looks interesting, but the idea is identical to that behind a proprietary device that has had protection from international patents for some years now. The idea of flash diffusion is not patented, but the individual device design is.... so I think the Larry Thong Light Bottle is safe.... however the name may be a bit of an issue. LOL ;-) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
GARY FONG LOVES THE 20D !
On Jul 28, 8:06 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:
PixelPix wrote: Sadly the 85/1.2 really isn't a stellar performer in the bokeh department. He would have definitely done much better with the 85/1.4 Nikkor and an adapter ring. Then again, he could have pulled this shot off with much better results if he had used the Larry Thong Lightbottle with this. http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2007/best_mates.htm Getting off topic now, but it is interesting to note that 16-9.net said this..... "So what have we learned? The fact that the Zeiss 21mm is the finest of its type is no surprise. What might come as a shock if you haven't scrutinised the MTF charts is that a healthy Canon 17-40mm f4 L is better than a Canon 16-35mm Mark I, and makes an evenly matched challenger to the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 for the title of 'best ultrawide zoom'." The key word here is "healthy" and finding a sample that even remotely resembles this has the same odds as winning the Lotto. The old 17-35/2.8 Nikkor still rules the roost! Rita Well I guess I am lucky and mine must be a good one, because in direct comparisons to both the 16-35 and 16-35 MkII Canons it comes out on top as 16-9 suggests. Plus I and about 1/2 dozen of my mates with this lens better buy some lotto tickets for tonight's draw, cause their 17-40ies are just as good as mine. If anyone is in SEQ has the Nikkor and would like to get together for a shoot, I would love to do a direct comparison. ;-) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
GARY FONG LOVES THE 20D !
On Jul 27, 3:57 pm, Eric Miller
wrote: This is what I question about this particular product for outdoor use. Like pointing the flash up and putting a business card or other reflector on it and then using it outdoors (when that is a technique more appropriate under a low ceiling) the Lightshere seems to be a device that would severely reduce flash output when used outdoors for diffusion that could be more efficiently obtained with a small softbox like the Westcott Micro Apollo or a bounce device like one of the Lumiquest products... Those devices will reduce the efficiency of the flash as well, but at least they aren't directing a significant portion of the flash output at the sky, to the side and rear of the photograher. The Gary Fong Lightsphere has an inverted dome top that redirects much of the light back out. I haven't noticed any decrease in flash power the few times I've used my Lightsphere. It has given me excellent results each time. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GARY FONG LOVES THE 20D ! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 654 | August 16th 07 01:41 PM |
Gary Fong embedded video | Ben Miller | Digital Photography | 0 | May 5th 07 02:15 AM |
Gary Fong's LightSphere | Ray Paseur | 35mm Photo Equipment | 4 | February 24th 05 10:17 PM |
Gary Fong's LightSphere | Ray Paseur | Digital Photography | 1 | February 20th 05 09:18 PM |