Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What kind of flash arrangement for macro?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 3:04:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Generally, using built-in or regular camera top
flashes don't work well for close-in macro, too bright
and undirectable.
So would you rather use some kind of flash arragement
or ambient light like sunlight?
I know ring lights produce a shadowless picture, but that
seems to be more for documentation than "art" where you
might want shadows for effect.
-Rich
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 3:04:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Friday 29 April 2005 20:04, RichA wrote:

> Generally, using built-in or regular camera top
> flashes don't work well for close-in macro, too bright
> and undirectable.
> So would you rather use some kind of flash arragement
> or ambient light like sunlight?
> I know ring lights produce a shadowless picture, but that
> seems to be more for documentation than "art" where you
> might want shadows for effect.

A ring light mixed with daylight with daylight acting as the main source
and the ring light merely fills or accents is a good combo.

There is also a device with two low power, conventional, battery powered
flashes that can be set at various angles to allow modeling on the
subject that attaches to the front of the lens.

You can also used direct sunlight, a small diffusion scrim, and
reflectors to achieve appropriate lighting on your subject.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
April 30, 2005 6:48:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

>
> So would you rather use some kind of flash arragement
> or ambient light like sunlight?


I don't care for most flash macro shots I've taken (or seen). They normally
have a bright subject and a totally black background. I suppose you could
do a 2 light setup and use one to illuminate the background? I've found I
get my best results using avalible light.

--

Stacey
Related resources
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 10:29:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:
> Generally, using built-in or regular camera top
> flashes don't work well for close-in macro, too bright
> and undirectable.
> So would you rather use some kind of flash arragement
> or ambient light like sunlight?
> I know ring lights produce a shadowless picture, but that
> seems to be more for documentation than "art" where you
> might want shadows for effect.
> -Rich

If you are doing static/product shots, then a couple small softboxes
will work nicely. There are a lot of ways to do this. Either by making
a small light-tent and using strobes or continuous lights shining on the
side of the "tent", or using typical soft boxes over strobes or
continuous lights.

If you are doing more shots "on the go", then a large on-flash softbox
might be a good idea. Something large enough to disperse the light in
the short distance you need. The maximum size you can use will vary on
the vertical size of the flash, so the softbox won't block the sensors
on the flash. You can either make one (instructions are online) or use
something like an Ultrabounce (or any other of the great softboxes out
there). http://www.lumiquest.com/products.htm

--
Whatevah / Jerry Horn
Jerry {at} Whatevah.com (working address)
Freelance Photography and Web services.
spambait: spam@uce.gov
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 12:02:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:u8t571111rdm1gd1uumbb7oapgc5pnies1@4ax.com...
> Generally, using built-in or regular camera top
> flashes don't work well for close-in macro, too bright
> and undirectable.
> So would you rather use some kind of flash arragement
> or ambient light like sunlight?
> I know ring lights produce a shadowless picture, but that
> seems to be more for documentation than "art" where you
> might want shadows for effect.
> -Rich

When possible, I always use ambient light amplified with a reflector. But
when that isn't enough, I use a portable flash off camera. I have long PC
cords that allow me to place the flash in a position that provides the
coverage I want, with my favorite being below and to the left of the camera.
In addition, the flash always has a diffuser or soft box attached.

I have been known to shoot 15 or 20 frames of the same subject, using
different flash positions, so that I get the effect I want. I also prefer a
telephoto macro if flash is going to be required. This reduces the risk of
the camera casting a shadow on the subject.

Walt
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 1:18:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:u8t571111rdm1gd1uumbb7oapgc5pnies1@4ax.com...
> .
> So would you rather use some kind of flash arragement
> or ambient light like sunlight?

Ambient is always best

> I know ring lights produce a shadowless picture, but that
> seems to be more for documentation than "art" where you
> might want shadows for effect.

The better ringlights can be switched to provide a varied light output for
modelling.
You can also get twin-head flashes that filter-mount.
Ideally you also need a remote flash to fill the background.

If you can still get them there is an inflatable reflector which is
transparent one one side with a white dish on the other. Your flash fits in
a velcro pocket facing the dish. These work surprisingly well on a remote
TTL lead. (I'm getting old and stupid so I can't recall the brand name.
Someone here might know.)

Flash results always look artificial, no matter how much effort you put in.
(Particularly when the subject is an insect, where the chitin will show
unatural bright highlights.)
If you want technical records this ain't a problem.
If you want natural beauty you need to work with available light.
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 1:32:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Use whatever kind of lighting will give you the effect you want. Ring
flashes will give the best lighting, but if you want shadows, set up a
light wherever you want it, and turn off any flash you might have.

RichA wrote:
> Generally, using built-in or regular camera top
> flashes don't work well for close-in macro, too bright
> and undirectable.
> So would you rather use some kind of flash arragement
> or ambient light like sunlight?
> I know ring lights produce a shadowless picture, but that
> seems to be more for documentation than "art" where you
> might want shadows for effect.
> -Rich
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 5:03:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> Generally, using built-in or regular camera top
> flashes don't work well for close-in macro, too bright
> and undirectable.
> So would you rather use some kind of flash arragement
> or ambient light like sunlight?
> I know ring lights produce a shadowless picture, but that
> seems to be more for documentation than "art" where you
> might want shadows for effect.

If the flashes have good power control, then they will not be too
bright. I believe the best in this regard are the top end Canon's that
can be set down to 1/128 power.

But the real problem is 1/r^2. The subject will be too bright at the
top and under exposed at the bottom.

So, next solution is to use two in wireless mode placed to each side.

Other solutions:

-difusion panels/reflectors to the sides and below (above)
-two flashes strapped to the lens
-longer FL macros that allow you to be further away and let more might
at the subject.

A Vivitar ringflash is about $100 - $125, so it's not that expensive ...
just not sure if the Vivitars will work well on digtital cameras.

Cheers,
Alan




--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 5:31:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <3dgo10F6kavvnU1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>>
>> So would you rather use some kind of flash arragement
>> or ambient light like sunlight?

>I don't care for most flash macro shots I've taken (or seen). They normally
>have a bright subject and a totally black background. I suppose you could
>do a 2 light setup and use one to illuminate the background? I've found I
>get my best results using avalible light.

With any kind of serious magnification, the only available light that
can stop camera motion is direct sunlight. Your advice only works for
static subjects and a tripod, with any serious magnification.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 5:31:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> In message <3dgo10F6kavvnU1@individual.net>,
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >RichA wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So would you rather use some kind of flash arragement
> >> or ambient light like sunlight?
>
> >I don't care for most flash macro shots I've taken (or seen). They normally
> >have a bright subject and a totally black background. I suppose you could
> >do a 2 light setup and use one to illuminate the background? I've found I
> >get my best results using avalible light.
>
> With any kind of serious magnification, the only available light that
> can stop camera motion is direct sunlight.

flash durations run from 1/125 to 1/2000 commonly,
to 1/50,000 for special flashes.

> Your advice only works for
> static subjects and a tripod, with any serious magnification.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 5:35:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <d4vf0u$kcg$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Tumbleweed" <Shovels@five.paces> wrote:

>If you can still get them there is an inflatable reflector which is
>transparent one one side with a white dish on the other. Your flash fits in
>a velcro pocket facing the dish. These work surprisingly well on a remote
>TTL lead. (I'm getting old and stupid so I can't recall the brand name.
>Someone here might know.)

Or, get yourself a few assistants to hold up white poster-boards that
have been sprayed with a matte finish, and bounce RC flash off of them.

Or, you could get a hughe posterboard with only holes for your arms and
your face in it, and mount a bunch of RC flashes facing it. Prepare for
questions from the police, of course.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 5:44:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 13:03:11 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> Generally, using built-in or regular camera top
>> flashes don't work well for close-in macro, too bright
>> and undirectable.
>> So would you rather use some kind of flash arragement
>> or ambient light like sunlight?
>> I know ring lights produce a shadowless picture, but that
>> seems to be more for documentation than "art" where you
>> might want shadows for effect.
>
>If the flashes have good power control, then they will not be too
>bright. I believe the best in this regard are the top end Canon's that
>can be set down to 1/128 power.
>
>But the real problem is 1/r^2. The subject will be too bright at the
>top and under exposed at the bottom.
>
>So, next solution is to use two in wireless mode placed to each side.
>
>Other solutions:
>
>-difusion panels/reflectors to the sides and below (above)
>-two flashes strapped to the lens
>-longer FL macros that allow you to be further away and let more might
>at the subject.
>
>A Vivitar ringflash is about $100 - $125, so it's not that expensive ...
>just not sure if the Vivitars will work well on digtital cameras.
>
>Cheers,
>Alan

Thanks for that info. Someone said you have to be careful with the
trigger voltage on flashes when you use them with digitals.
-Rich
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 6:02:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Crownfield wrote:


>
> flash durations run from 1/125 to 1/2000 commonly,
> to 1/50,000 for special flashes.

I'd say 2 to 2.5ms is more the fat end, that is to say 1/400 for a full
power dump from a high end flash. At low power, (1/32 power or less)
it pulls to the 1/10,000s region for camera flashes.

This is a key in the use of leaf shutters which commonly operate at
1/400, 1/500 and 1/1000 (depending on manuf/model) ... eg: close to the
flash duration at full power.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 6:24:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> Thanks for that info. Someone said you have to be careful with the
> trigger voltage on flashes when you use them with digitals.

The Minolta 7D and the Canon 20D will handle high PC sync voltages
(400V [eitehr polarity] for the 7D;
250V [either polarity] for the 20D) on their PC sync terminals.

I don't know about the D70 / *ist D's in this respect.

In the 20D manual (p. 98) it is stated: "Do not attach a high voltage
flash unit on the camera's hot shoe. It might not work."

The infamous Vivitar 283 (not a ring flash) might not work AND might
damage the camera as its sync voltage is reported to be 280V. Wein have
a "safe sync" device that will protect the camera by bringing the sync
voltage down to below 10V or so.

Some recent Canons (film anyway) have a fairly low sync voltage
tolerance (less than 20V, maybe less than 10V, I don't recall).

There's a table of flash sync voltages here:
http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
April 30, 2005 8:54:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <3dgo10F6kavvnU1@individual.net>,
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>RichA wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So would you rather use some kind of flash arragement
>>> or ambient light like sunlight?
>
>>I don't care for most flash macro shots I've taken (or seen). They
>>normally have a bright subject and a totally black background. I suppose
>>you could do a 2 light setup and use one to illuminate the background?
>>I've found I get my best results using avalible light.
>
> With any kind of serious magnification, the only available light that
> can stop camera motion is direct sunlight. Your advice only works for
> static subjects and a tripod, with any serious magnification.

Yep, although I've had some pretty good sucess with dSLR's hand held at
fairly high mag using avalible light if you're willing to shoot several and
throw out the "shakey" ones.. Seems the DOF at F8-f11 is good enough which
helps a bunch compared to having to shoot at f16-f22 on 35mm. I just
personally don't care for those "black background" shots was my point.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 9:16:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d50igs$rkb$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>RichA wrote:
>
>> Thanks for that info. Someone said you have to be careful with the
>> trigger voltage on flashes when you use them with digitals.
>
>The Minolta 7D and the Canon 20D will handle high PC sync voltages
>(400V [eitehr polarity] for the 7D;
> 250V [either polarity] for the 20D) on their PC sync terminals.
>
>I don't know about the D70 / *ist D's in this respect.

The D70' manual (on the bottom of page 186 in my edition) says:

"Use only Nikon Flash Accessories

Use only Nikon Speedlights. Negative voltages, or voltages over
250V applied to the accessory shoe could not only prevent normal
operation, but damage the sync circuitry of the camera or flash.
Before using a Nikon Speedlight not listed in this section,
contact a Nikon authorized service representative for more
details."

However, they also mention the AS-15, which allows connecting PC
flash cables to the camera (there is no built-in PC contact).

Note that the old Medical Nikkor, with a built-in ring flash, is
stated to work on the camera with the uses of the AS-15 shoe adaptor to
provide the PC contact.

I suspect (but don't know for certain) that the AS-15 may limit
voltages applied to the PC contact. *(see below)

I have not bothered measuring the applied voltage from the PC
cable for the Medical Nikkor, but since it is quite old, and AC powered,
I expect a fairly high voltage on the sync cable. Especially since as a
part of the Medical Nikkor kit, there is a plastic cover to fit onto the
special shoe surrounding the rewind knob on the Nikon F body to prevent
shocks to the operator. (*again -- see below)

>In the 20D manual (p. 98) it is stated: "Do not attach a high voltage
>flash unit on the camera's hot shoe. It might not work."

No warnings about it possibly damaging the camera's sync
circuitry?

[ ... ]

>There's a table of flash sync voltages here:
>http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html

Useful -- but it does not seem to list the Medical Nikkor.

O.K. I *had* to know the answers:

1) The AS-15 is purely a straight through connection, though there
is room for a zener and an anti-reverse polarity diode to be
added.

2) The Medical Nikkor (at least *mine*) measures at 154 V with a
10 megohm input impedance digital multimeter.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 9:57:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DoN. Nichols wrote:

> In article <d50igs$rkb$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>I don't know about the D70 / *ist D's in this respect.
>
>
> The D70' manual (on the bottom of page 186 in my edition) says:
>
> "Use only Nikon Flash Accessories
>
> Use only Nikon Speedlights. Negative voltages, or voltages over
> 250V applied to the accessory shoe could not only prevent normal
> operation, but damage the sync circuitry of the camera or flash.
> Before using a Nikon Speedlight not listed in this section,
> contact a Nikon authorized service representative for more
> details."
>
> However, they also mention the AS-15, which allows connecting PC
> flash cables to the camera (there is no built-in PC contact).

no PC connector? Sheesh! (

>
> Note that the old Medical Nikkor, with a built-in ring flash, is
> stated to work on the camera with the uses of the AS-15 shoe adaptor to
> provide the PC contact.
>
> I suspect (but don't know for certain) that the AS-15 may limit
> voltages applied to the PC contact. *(see below)

Possibly. Like a Wein safe-sync device.

>
> I have not bothered measuring the applied voltage from the PC
> cable for the Medical Nikkor, but since it is quite old, and AC powered,
> I expect a fairly high voltage on the sync cable. Especially since as a

The high voltages on some flash syncs go to minimizing the circuitry in
the flash. It is a direct connection to the coil that triggers the tube
to conduct and dicharge the cap. Some flashes have very low sync
voltages like my studio flashes ( 5V ). For a few cents in components,
the voltage can be made very reasonable.

>>In the 20D manual (p. 98) it is stated: "Do not attach a high voltage
>>flash unit on the camera's hot shoe. It might not work."
>
>
> No warnings about it possibly damaging the camera's sync
> circuitry?

Up to 250V, no problem.

>
>>There's a table of flash sync voltages here:
>>http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html
>
>
> Useful -- but it does not seem to list the Medical Nikkor.
>
> O.K. I *had* to know the answers:
>
> 1) The AS-15 is purely a straight through connection, though there
> is room for a zener and an anti-reverse polarity diode to be
> added.

Most cameras don't care about the polarity of the PC sync.

>
> 2) The Medical Nikkor (at least *mine*) measures at 154 V with a
> 10 megohm input impedance digital multimeter.

Send the info to the webpage above. (I did the same for my strobes and
they never added the data. So much for public service...)

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 11:17:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <4273BA9E.65A2@cox.net>,
Crownfield <Crownfield@cox.net> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>>
>> In message <3dgo10F6kavvnU1@individual.net>,
>> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >I don't care for most flash macro shots I've taken (or seen). They normally
>> >have a bright subject and a totally black background. I suppose you could
>> >do a 2 light setup and use one to illuminate the background? I've found I
>> >get my best results using avalible light.

>> With any kind of serious magnification, the only available light that
>> can stop camera motion is direct sunlight.

>flash durations run from 1/125 to 1/2000 commonly,
>to 1/50,000 for special flashes.

I thought a flash like the 550EX would run from about 1/10000 to about
1/1000. Anyway, flash is not "available light". Read again.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 2:03:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:24:29 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> Thanks for that info. Someone said you have to be careful with the
>> trigger voltage on flashes when you use them with digitals.
>
>The Minolta 7D and the Canon 20D will handle high PC sync voltages
>(400V [eitehr polarity] for the 7D;
> 250V [either polarity] for the 20D) on their PC sync terminals.
>
>I don't know about the D70 / *ist D's in this respect.
>
>In the 20D manual (p. 98) it is stated: "Do not attach a high voltage
>flash unit on the camera's hot shoe. It might not work."
>
>The infamous Vivitar 283 (not a ring flash) might not work AND might
>damage the camera as its sync voltage is reported to be 280V. Wein have
>a "safe sync" device that will protect the camera by bringing the sync
>voltage down to below 10V or so.
>
>Some recent Canons (film anyway) have a fairly low sync voltage
>tolerance (less than 20V, maybe less than 10V, I don't recall).
>
>There's a table of flash sync voltages here:
>http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html
>
>Cheers,
>Alan.

Thanks. I think I saw a Sunpak grip that allowed
various "SLR" flashes to be used on DSLRs.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 2:05:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:54:10 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> In message <3dgo10F6kavvnU1@individual.net>,
>> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So would you rather use some kind of flash arragement
>>>> or ambient light like sunlight?
>>
>>>I don't care for most flash macro shots I've taken (or seen). They
>>>normally have a bright subject and a totally black background. I suppose
>>>you could do a 2 light setup and use one to illuminate the background?
>>>I've found I get my best results using avalible light.
>>
>> With any kind of serious magnification, the only available light that
>> can stop camera motion is direct sunlight. Your advice only works for
>> static subjects and a tripod, with any serious magnification.
>
>Yep, although I've had some pretty good sucess with dSLR's hand held at
>fairly high mag using avalible light if you're willing to shoot several and
>throw out the "shakey" ones.. Seems the DOF at F8-f11 is good enough which
>helps a bunch compared to having to shoot at f16-f22 on 35mm. I just
>personally don't care for those "black background" shots was my point.

I know the suggested shutter speed for hand-holding zoom lenses,
but how do you calculate it for macro lenses? I figured most
higher mag. macro shots would be done via tripod.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 7:29:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <u9e871p4jo30j5u2dr4f7s32g8ec8e48bj@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>I know the suggested shutter speed for hand-holding zoom lenses,
>but how do you calculate it for macro lenses?

I don't have a formula, but it is going to be more directly related to
angular magnification than it is to focal length.

>I figured most
>higher mag. macro shots would be done via tripod.

The tripod doesn't work very well for moving subjects, unless you can
predict where they're going to go.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 7:29:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 01 May 2005 03:29:53 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

>In message <u9e871p4jo30j5u2dr4f7s32g8ec8e48bj@4ax.com>,
>RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>I know the suggested shutter speed for hand-holding zoom lenses,
>>but how do you calculate it for macro lenses?
>
>I don't have a formula, but it is going to be more directly related to
>angular magnification than it is to focal length.
>
>>I figured most
>>higher mag. macro shots would be done via tripod.
>
>The tripod doesn't work very well for moving subjects, unless you can
>predict where they're going to go.

Moving macro subjects when you might only have a few mm depth of field
sounds like one tough shoot!
-Rich
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 12:34:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:o hq871dr722jtknbtug3pi9n645m54o5bi@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 01 May 2005 03:29:53 GMT, JPS@no.komm wrote:

> Moving macro subjects when you might only have a few mm depth of field
> sounds like one tough shoot!
> -Rich

It is :o )
That's why you see so few truly great macro pics.
And that's why, when you take one, it is so very, very satisfying!
May 1, 2005 3:05:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <u9e871p4jo30j5u2dr4f7s32g8ec8e48bj@4ax.com>,
> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I know the suggested shutter speed for hand-holding zoom lenses,
>>but how do you calculate it for macro lenses?
>
>
> I don't have a formula, but it is going to be more directly related to
> angular magnification than it is to focal length.
>
>
>>I figured most
>>higher mag. macro shots would be done via tripod.
>
>
> The tripod doesn't work very well for moving subjects, unless you can
> predict where they're going to go.


With my long lens setup for macro, it would take a very very strong
tripod to hold steady enough to be usable. It's so heavy, it wobbles
like mad. I tried some with the camera set on a table and that worked
but not incredibly better than the occasional lucky hand held shot.
Anonymous
May 1, 2005 4:24:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <ohq871dr722jtknbtug3pi9n645m54o5bi@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>Moving macro subjects when you might only have a few mm depth of field
>sounds like one tough shoot!

No one ever said there wouldn't be a lot of deleting involved!
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 12:27:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <u9e871p4jo30j5u2dr4f7s32g8ec8e48bj@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:54:10 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

[ ... ]

>>Yep, although I've had some pretty good sucess with dSLR's hand held at
>>fairly high mag using avalible light if you're willing to shoot several and
>>throw out the "shakey" ones.. Seems the DOF at F8-f11 is good enough which
>>helps a bunch compared to having to shoot at f16-f22 on 35mm. I just
>>personally don't care for those "black background" shots was my point.
>
>I know the suggested shutter speed for hand-holding zoom lenses,
>but how do you calculate it for macro lenses? I figured most
>higher mag. macro shots would be done via tripod.

I've gotten pretty good results at about 1:1 reproduction ratio
handheld -- with a Medical Nikkor (quite an old lens), with built-in
ring flash, and built-in exposure computation (camera is in manual
mode). But part of that is the really short exposure times because of
the ring flash up that close, and part is helped by a 200mm basic lens
focal length (which allows a greater distance from the subject to the
lens), and screw-on lenses to produce specific reproduction ratios.
Depth of field was pretty good, because at that close a distance, and
with the D70's lowest ISO of 200, the aperture needed to be pretty
small. I really need a ND filter to add to the stack to get even higher
reproduction ratios -- but it would fit no other lens that I have. This
is one place where having an ISO minimum of 100 (or even 50) would be
beneficial.

(The lens is set up to record the reproduction ratio in a corner of the
image, but because of the crop factor on a D70, this is totally lost. :-)

But -- if you want light direction modeling what you are
photographing, this will not be satisfactory by itself.

My last series of shots using it were of a funnel-weaver spider
which had taken up residence between the bathroom window and the storm
window last summer (when it was open a crack), and had grown in there
over the summer and fall to too large to exit. This meant that I had to
shoot through some layers of web, and could not clean the other surface
of the window, but I still got some pretty good shots, considering the
limitations. There was no way of setting up a tripod there, unless I
put one leg in the toilet bowl. :-) And focusing had to be done by
moving the camera/lens assembly, as there was no focus adjustment on
that lens. It was made to give precise reproduction ratios.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 2:07:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d50uva$ea8$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>DoN. Nichols wrote:
>
>> In article <d50igs$rkb$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

[ ... ]

>> However, they also mention the AS-15, which allows connecting PC
>> flash cables to the camera (there is no built-in PC contact).
>
>no PC connector? Sheesh! (

It has the multi-pin hot shoe, which has all the pins to connect
to the current line of Nikon flashes. And it has the IR ("wireless") to
connect to the same flashes, so they are making you pay a little extra
if you want to use flashes from other manufacturers. :-)

>>
>> Note that the old Medical Nikkor, with a built-in ring flash, is
>> stated to work on the camera with the uses of the AS-15 shoe adaptor to
>> provide the PC contact.
>>
>> I suspect (but don't know for certain) that the AS-15 may limit
>> voltages applied to the PC contact. *(see below)
>
>Possibly. Like a Wein safe-sync device.

Turns out to be nothing but a straight through connection.

>>
>> I have not bothered measuring the applied voltage from the PC
>> cable for the Medical Nikkor, but since it is quite old, and AC powered,
>> I expect a fairly high voltage on the sync cable. Especially since as a
>
>The high voltages on some flash syncs go to minimizing the circuitry in
>the flash. It is a direct connection to the coil that triggers the tube
>to conduct and dicharge the cap. Some flashes have very low sync
>voltages like my studio flashes ( 5V ). For a few cents in components,
>the voltage can be made very reasonable.

The Medical Nikkor is an old enough design so the number of
electronic components would be at a minimum. Nothing but the
capacitors, trigger coil, and flash lamp. plus the transformer in the
power supply module, and presumably a resistor.

>>>In the 20D manual (p. 98) it is stated: "Do not attach a high voltage
>>>flash unit on the camera's hot shoe. It might not work."
>>
>>
>> No warnings about it possibly damaging the camera's sync
>> circuitry?
>
>Up to 250V, no problem.

O.K. Same as the Nikon D70 (and apparently several other
Nikons).

>>
>>>There's a table of flash sync voltages here:
>>>http://www.botzilla.com/photo/strobeVolts.html
>>
>>
>> Useful -- but it does not seem to list the Medical Nikkor.
>>
>> O.K. I *had* to know the answers:
>>
>> 1) The AS-15 is purely a straight through connection, though there
>> is room for a zener and an anti-reverse polarity diode to be
>> added.
>
> Most cameras don't care about the polarity of the PC sync.

Certainly mechanical sync ones don't care about the polarity --
or about the voltage within reason. This was the case with my old Nikon
F bodies, as well as with all cameras which I had prior to that time.
the Nikon N90s, however, has electronics driving the flash sync, and
does have a limit to the voltage which is allowable. (I'm not up to
digging up the manual for the N90s to check at the moment, but I do
remember a warning, so the D70 is not the first of these to bear such
warnings.)

However, depending on the device performing the actual
switching, solid state circuitry does.

1) A transistor (unlikely in the application) does.

2) A SCR (much more likely) does.

3) A thyristor does not -- except possibly if some of the
triggering power is being derived from the flash voltage. (The
Nikon D70 appears to sense the voltage as an indicator that an
external flash is connected, and if that voltage is negative,
the camera may not recognize the presense of the flash unit.

4) Adding a bridge rectifier would allow polarity insensitivity
with all of the above. However, with a hot shoe, it would
require the outer rail of the shoe to be insulated from the
camera body as well, and allow for other paths of damaging
voltages into the camera's electronics. (A bridge rectifier in
the adaptor module which plugs into the hot shoe would eliminate
that, but would eliminate part of the voltage which the camera
has to work with. For example, given a 6V sync flash unit, you
would lose 1.4V (two diode forward voltage drops), leaving only
4.6V for the camera to work with. This might be sufficient, or
it might not.

>> 2) The Medical Nikkor (at least *mine*) measures at 154 V with a
>> 10 megohm input impedance digital multimeter.
>
> Send the info to the webpage above. (I did the same for my strobes and
>they never added the data. So much for public service...)

I have just sent it off. I have no response yet, nor am I sure
whether to expect one -- especially since it is Sunday evening.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
May 2, 2005 7:25:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:


>
> I know the suggested shutter speed for hand-holding zoom lenses,
> but how do you calculate it for macro lenses? I figured most
> higher mag. macro shots would be done via tripod.
>

This is what I love about dSLR's, they have decent DOF even at F8 so
shooting closeup stuff handheld isn't that tough. With 35mm film, you
needed to stop WAY down to get useable DOF. I try to keep it over 1/100 and
with a 50mm macro lens, get lots of keepers.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 2:29:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DoN. Nichols wrote:

>>no PC connector? Sheesh! (
>
>
> It has the multi-pin hot shoe, which has all the pins to connect
> to the current line of Nikon flashes. And it has the IR ("wireless") to
> connect to the same flashes, so they are making you pay a little extra
> if you want to use flashes from other manufacturers. :-)

I was being sarcastic.

>>Possibly. Like a Wein safe-sync device.
>
>
> Turns out to be nothing but a straight through connection.

Does it lower the sync voltage?

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 12:01:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d55dfs$n5$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>DoN. Nichols wrote:

[ ... ]

> >>Possibly. Like a Wein safe-sync device.
> >
> >
> > Turns out to be nothing but a straight through connection.
>
>Does it lower the sync voltage?

A "straight through connection" is nothing but wires from
connector to connector. No active circuitry (e.g. thyristors,
opto-isolators, SCRs), such as would be needed to properly lower the
voltage.


Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 12:29:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DoN. Nichols wrote:

> A "straight through connection" is nothing but wires from
> connector to connector. No active circuitry (e.g. thyristors,
> opto-isolators, SCRs), such as would be needed to properly lower the
> voltage.

Are you sure its a safe sync? If you're measuring one with a VM, then
it will look "straight through" as the continuity checking (or
resisitance checking) voltage of a VM is very low.

http://www.weinproducts.com/safesyncs.htm

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 3:31:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d56gkq$mo4$1@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>DoN. Nichols wrote:
>
>> A "straight through connection" is nothing but wires from
>> connector to connector. No active circuitry (e.g. thyristors,
>> opto-isolators, SCRs), such as would be needed to properly lower the
>> voltage.
>
>Are you sure its a safe sync?

I had only *speculated* that it *might* be in the earlier
article, and then corrected myself near the end of the article, after
disassembling and examining the device.

> If you're measuring one with a VM, then
>it will look "straight through" as the continuity checking (or
>resisitance checking) voltage of a VM is very low.

This is the Nikon AS-15 that I am describing, and when I took it
apart, I discovered that it was straight through.

My multimeter (a Fluke 27) has a mode which will recognize the
forward voltage drop of a single silicon diode in continuity mode -- and
it displays the forward voltage drop under those circumstances. I
measured nothing but very low resistance between center and center
contacts, and between barrel and rail contacts, and infinity between the
center and outer, regardless of polarity, so I took a screwdriver and
attacked it to see what (if anything) was inside. The answer was
"wires".

So it is *not* a safe sync of any form -- it is just an adaptor.

If you want to verify this for yourself, here are some quick and
dirty shots of the adaptor. No attempt at quality photgraphy for this,
and I was fighting with the wrong flash (an SB-28, not an SB-800)
because the built-in flash (which would have been quite satisfactory in
terms of illumination) cast shadows of the lens at this magnification
with this lens. I could not use the Medical Nikkor, which would have
been better for the purpose, because it needed the AS-15, which was
disassembled and being photographed at the time. :-)

http://www2.d-and-d.com/misc/Junuqe/AS-15/index.html

>http://www.weinproducts.com/safesyncs.htm

That is a different product by a different manufacturer. The
basic appearance (as photographed on the web page) is similar, but not
identical, and it appears that the Wein product has a hot shoe on the
top, which the Nikon AS-15 does not.

But -- the AS-15 is documented in the manual for the D70 as
being all that is needed to use the Medical Nikkor with the D70 (which
is, after all, documented to handle up to 250V sync levels), so I will
not worry -- unless I need to use some flash unit with higher input
voltages. At that time, I might opt to personally install some
protective circuitry in the housing of the AS-15.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 2:04:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DoN. Nichols wrote:

> That is a different product by a different manufacturer. The

I was speaking in the context of voltage protection and the Wein safe
sync. It is no surprise that the Nikon adaptor has no voltage protection.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
!