Bridge, MFT, achromats, dSLR, primes - a journey of exploration

[DayDreamer]

Not to forget "And which camera do you enjoy using most?" (FZ200 for invertebrates, 70D for flowers, in both cases because of the operational characteristics of the camera, particularly but not solely in terms of focusing - manual focusing in the case of the 70D, autofocusing for the FZ200.)

But if you were allowed only one camera which would you choose as the compromise you could live with the most

 

[GardenersHelper]

But if you were allowed only one camera which would you choose as the compromise you could live with the most

That strikes me as an extremely penetrating question John, and well worth considering seriously (not least because I think a one-camera solution is a real option). The answer came to me immediately, no thought required, and then I started thinking about pros and cons to try to work out why, and whether a considered comparison of pros and cons was consistent with my immediate reaction. I'm going to do a little research on/testing of a couple of things before I reply.

If it's obvious to you, or to anyone else, what my answer is going to be, then that would be telling me something too I think. Not necessarily about what would actually be the best solution, but as to what's going on in my mind under the surface and colouring my thinking sufficient for others to be able to see it even if I can't.

 

[DayDreamer]

That strikes me as an extremely penetrating question John, and well worth considering seriously (not least because I think a one-camera solution is a real option). The answer came to me immediately, no thought required, and then I started thinking about pros and cons to try to work out why, and whether a considered comparison of pros and cons was consistent with my immediate reaction. I'm going to do a little research on/testing of a couple of things before I reply.

If it's obvious to you, or to anyone else, what my answer is going to be, then that would be telling me something too I think. Not necessarily about what would actually be the best solution, but as to what's going on in my mind under the surface and colouring my thinking sufficient for others to be able to see it even if I can't.

I reckon you have a soft spot for the FZ200

 

[LCPete]

Hi Nick just had a look on my PC screen at the Comparison shots
Comparison 1 the FZ 200 looks nicer with better colour and detail
Comparison 2 cant separate them
Comparison 3 much better detail on 70D the FZ200 shot looks grainy
Comparison 4 the 70D looks " better " but cant put my finger on it just looks slightly clearer
to be honest the differences are slight and in isolation any of the shots are very good
the FZ200 does have very slightly more noise in the background but its only a tiny amount
for image quality there's not much in it

 

[LCPete]

for some reason I cant edit my last post but I meant to say the the FZ200 shots all have very slightly more noise in the background but its only a tiny amount not worth worrying about
Going by these shots I would use the camera that you prefer to use and that is easier to use, reading between the lines I think the FZ200 is your favourite if its easier to get focus with the FZ200 then that's more important than a slight difference in image quality

 

[GardenersHelper]

I reckon you have a soft spot for the FZ200

Hi Nick just had a look on my PC screen at the Comparison shots
Comparison 1 the FZ 200 looks nicer with better colour and detail
Comparison 2 cant separate them
Comparison 3 much better detail on 70D the FZ200 shot looks grainy
Comparison 4 the 70D looks " better " but cant put my finger on it just looks slightly clearer
to be honest the differences are slight and in isolation any of the shots are very good
the FZ200 does have very slightly more noise in the background but its only a tiny amount
for image quality there's not much in it

for some reason I cant edit my last post but I meant to say the the FZ200 shots all have very slightly more noise in the background but its only a tiny amount not worth worrying about
Going by these shots I would use the camera that you prefer to use and that is easier to use, reading between the lines I think the FZ200 is your favourite if its easier to get focus with the FZ200 then that's more important than a slight difference in image quality

Thanks both. You are right about the FZ200 of course.

Thanks for the detailed feedback on the images Pete. Our reading of them is not precisely the same, but the overall conclusion is - I'd be happier using the FZ200. This is reinforced by a couple more developments over the past 24 hours.

Last night at about 2am, after I had spent over an hour trying to clean the sensor (I lost count, I think it was around 18 attempts), I was ready to get rid of the 70D. I could get it professionally cleaned, but why bother? That would mean having an interchangeable lens camera that I couldn't change the lens on for fear of getting back to dust issues, or being prepared to pay £XX however much it is for sensor cleaning after changing lenses, as I seem incapable of doing it myself no matter how many times I try.

And I went out for a bit into the garden for an hour or so this morning as there was a bit of sunshine between yesterday's and tomorrow's rain. I used the FZ200 most of the time and it felt fine (the Velbon arm is great btw). And then I tried a few of the same shots with the 70D. Not good. It was being difficult about gaining focus and I was losing shots because of it, and even before getting to that point it is much more difficult to find the subject with the 70D because of the way the image on the LCD works when you haven't locked on to a subject.

And yet .... this afternoon I went out into the garden again with both cameras and the 70D gave me much better results with this type of fly than the FZ200.


IMG_7491-Edit-2 PS1 PSS3 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

This was captured using full zoom on the 55-250 with the Raynox 150. That makes the image about 19mm across, so fractionally beyond 1:1. Like the next two images, it used ISO 800. I don't recall trying a lower ISO; that may have been a mistake. If I get the chance I'll try again and see if a lower ISO will work.

There were a few of them zipping around in quite bright sun on the lily pads in our tiny pond and I spent a while with each camera trying to capture photos of them. They rarely settled for more than a few seconds, and in terms of capturing the images the FZ200 was better, in line with previous experience. But in terms of the quality of the images it was no contest - there is no doubt in my mind that the 70D produced much better results.

Both cameras were using flash (Panasonic and Canon versions of exactly the same Metz model, using the same diffuser, which I transferred between flash units). The flash was somewhere between fill flash and flash as the dominant light source. (In the morning I had confirmed yet again that the 70D seems sorely deficient when using flash as the dominant light source, and this was even though I had replaced the polystyrene plate with a more transmissive diffusion layer from a cheap eBay diffuser I bought recently but was too large.)

There were also some smaller flies, of a sort I have never had much success with (not on the pond, which is a slightly difficult environment - I have had some success, just once, with a similar subject on a daisy in the shade). You can get an idea of the size of them from this image.


IMG_7460-Edit-2 PS1 PSS3 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

They are not springtail type small, but I don't often work at (and am not very good at) even this, less taxing, scale, and they are small enough to have given me problems photographing them for several years. The occasional (just) usable shots have needed heavy massaging in post processing to keep them from the rubbish bin. So even though it isn't brilliant in comparison to a lot of the really nice small stuff being posted here now, this shot that I captured with the 70D today (and hasn't been heavily post processed) is by my standards not too bad, and certainly much better than I have achieved before for this subject in this environment. (The image was captured using the Raynox 250 and 150 stacked, and cropped.)


Little fly crop 400 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


IMG_7429-Edit-3 PS1 PSS3.128 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

This story isn't finished yet it seems.

 

[LCPete]

Interesting Nick it looks like there's no easy answer the FZ 200 is easier to use but the 70D has the image quality

 

[GardenersHelper]

Interesting Nick it looks like there's no easy answer the FZ 200 is easier to use but the 70D has the image quality

Overall that's pretty much it Pete. Looking in a bit more detail, for me the FZ200 is easier, faster and more accurate to use, and is better than the 70D using flash as the dominant light source. The 70D has much better image quality some of the time, but a lot of the time the image quality is comparable, sometimes one sometimes the other being slightly better, but with not much in it either way.

 

[LCPete]

Yes I guess you may as well use the camera that is easier to use
I would keep the 70D tho for those times that you want ultimate image quality
I know how you feel about getting focus I do love my 100L and 7D but I sometimes get frustrated
It just won't focus on a damselflies tail so I have to work round it by focusing on the body and then move back and forth till the tail looks in focus
Can't always do it in one shot a I sometimes like a slightly forward angle
I guess that I'm just asking too much of the gear as the end of a damselflies tail is very small
Live view is the answer but I can't handhold the camera steady enough at arms length but do use live veiw when I can use a tripod

 

[GardenersHelper]

I have to thank two people (not posters on this site - not yet at least, but I live in hope) for helping with me with the issues covered in this post. The first is David, who convinced me that getting a ColorChecker Passport and using camera-specific camera profiles might be a good idea, and took the time to explain to me some of the issues I was having difficulty getting my head around. The second is Deb, who pointed me at the techniques described here for getting improved colours from camera profiles and took the time to explain exactly how to go about it. Many thanks to you both, David and Deb.

I previously wrote this in connection with images to which a ColorChecker camera profile had been applied.

The richness of the colours and the strength of the microcontrast are a little more than I perceived at the time, but not (to my eye) troublingly so. They look credible to me, even if not completely accurate, and (to my eye) they make for a strong visual impact, and a “look” that I find pleasing. The same was true of quite a lot of the images I processed.)

The more I looked at images to which a ColorChecker camera profile had been applied, and went back and forth to the garden to compare the image with the reality, the more I felt that the colours in the ColorChecker versions were "overcooked". And I came to like that look less. And it turns out I'm not alone in this.

First, a recap with some extra details on how you use the ColorChecker Passport.

The Passport is fairly small.


0580 01 2014_06_08 P1840462 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

It opens out to reveal two sets of coloured patches. To construct a camera profile you use the patches on the top panel in this image.


0580 02 2014_06_08 P1840466 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I find the Passport really difficult to open; it has a "latch" that is so tight that I have to use both hands to open it, which can make the Passport rather inconvenient out in the field.

The hinges are quite stiff so it will stay in whatever position you open it up to, so you can sit it on the ground or somewhere else convenient. However, I have attached mine to a clear plastic folder that is clipped to a clipboard. This makes it easier to arrange without it getting wet on dewy ground (I don't know whether the colour patches would be affected by water). I can lean the clipboard against one of my bags and that puts it in a convenient position to photograph, and by changing which side of the bag it leans against I can capture an image of it (what I call a Colorchecker "reference image") in sunshine or shaded by the bag. I can also use the numbers in the folder to associate particular reference images with anything I note down about the circumstances in which it was captured.


0580 03 2014_06_08 P1840458 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

So, to create a camera profile you first capture an image of the Passport. It isthis area of the Passport that the software will need to work on.


0580 04 2014_06_08 P1840459 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Later, in Lightroom, you "export" the reference image to a ColorChecker Lightroom plugin and this creates a camera profile. By default, images have an "Adobe Standard" profile in Lightroom. By switching to a profile generated from a ColorChecker reference image you change the way Lightroom interpets the colours from a RAW file. (This stuff only works for RAW.)

You use camera profiles in combination with White balance settings. The Passport has neutral areas amongst the patches used to generate reference images, and it has a large neutral area on the back side of the central panel. However, because the Passport is so difficult to open, and in any case is unnecessarily large for the purpose, I just use a strip of photographically grey card, which gives the same results as the neutral areas on the Passport. It is very easy to slip the strip of grey card out of a pocket, use it, and put it back in my pocket, all far faster than putting things down and struggling with the Passport.


0580 05 2014_06_08 P1840467 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

In earlier posts I showed how the colours can change when using one of these Passport-generated camera profiles compared to the Adobe Standard profile. You have no control over the extent or nature of these changes. You point the ColorChecker plugin at a reference image, and the plugin produces a camera profile. No options. As well as the Lightroom plugin, x-rite provide standalone software for creating camera profiles, but this provides no options either.

It turns out that there are options, using different, free software from Adobe.

Continued in next post ...

 

[GardenersHelper]

.... continued from previous post.




As before, you capture a RAW reference image of the ColorChecker Passport (or some other Macbeth ColorChecker). Then instead of using the x-rite Lightroom plugin, you convert it to dng format using Adobe DNG Converter, which is a free download from Adobe.


0581 01 2014_06_08 01 Adobe DNG Converter Dialog by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

You then open the dng format reference image in Adobe DNG Profile Editor, another free download from Adobe and choose a "base profile". This is a camera profile which will be modified according to the colours in the reference image. With my FZ200 there is just one to choose from - Adobe Standard. With the 70D there are several - Camera Faithful, Camera Neutral, Camera Landscape, Camera Portrait and Adobe Standard. These are the Picture Styles available on the 70D.

There are various adjustments you can make. I haven't used any of them, but there is obviously far more scope for tweaking than when using the x-rite software.

You can tweak individual colours by using a dropper to pick a colour in the reference image, at which point a dot appears in the colour circle on the right. You can then drag the dot around to change how the colour will appear. This screenshot shows the dot on the colour wheel corresponding to the orange colour on the ColorChecker, and the arrow shows what that colour will be changed to. (A silly change in this example, changing orange to yellow, but I imagine much more subtle changes might be useful.)


0581 02 2014_06_08 02 Moving a colour in DNG Profile Editor by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

You can adjust the tone curve away from the curve used by the base profile (shown in red here). (This is another silly change, just to show that you can add points to the curve and move them in the usual way.)


0581 03 2014_06_08 03 Adjusting the tone curve in DNG Profile Editor by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

You can change the primary colours and white balance.


0581 04 2014_06_08 04 Adjusting the primary colours and White Balance in DNG Profile Editor by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

You can set some non graphical options.


0581 05 2014_06_08 05 Non graphical options in DNG Profile Editor by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Apart from picking a base profile, the only other thing you must do (and the only other thing I did do) is to drag the four coloured circles on to the appropriate squares on the reference image, tell it whether to create one, two or both colour tables, and tell it to create them.

0581 06 2014_06_08 06 Setting up the colour chart and creating colour tables by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

You can then use File Export to put the new camera profile in the appropriate folder so the Adobe products will find it.


0581 07 2014_06_08 07 Export the camera profile by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

If you ignore the optional adjustments, like I did, it is really quick to do. There is no waiting around while processing takes place (as there is with the x-rite Lightroom plugin).

When you next restart Lightroom, the new camera profile will be there and ready for use.

Continued in next post ....

 

[GardenersHelper]

Continued from previous post ....


NOTE:
I have included composite images in this post which compare the effects of using different camera profiles. You may have difficulty seeing the differences I am talking about. There are larger versions of the individual images here, and if you flick back and forth amongst the larger versions, with one version exactly and instantly replacing the other on the screen and you not having to move your eyes from a particular area of the image, you should find the differences are much more apparent. To do this effectively you may need to download some images and use your preferred image viewer to flick between them instantly.

So, what difference does it make using camera profiles generated using Adobe DNG Profile Editor rather than the x-rite software that comes with ColorChecker Passport?

All the renditions in this composite image are of the same image, with the same White balance applied to it. The only thing that is different between the images is the camera profile used. The same is true of the other examples in this post.


0578 01 2014_06_07 Example 01. by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

At the top left is the rendition using Lightroom's "Adobe Standard" profile for the 70D. To its right is a rendition using a camera profile generated using the x-rite software from a ColorChecker reference image captured in sunny conditions.

On the top right is a rendition using a camera profile generated with Adobe DNG Profile Editor using the Camera Neutral base profile. It used the same ("sunny") ColorChecker reference image as the x-rite version to its left.

The bottom row has renditions using different camera profiles, all generated with Adobe DNG Profile Editor using the Camera Neutral base profile, but using different ColorChecker reference images, captured, left to right, 10 minutes after sunrise, 2 hours before sunset and 10 minutes before sunset.

All the renditions are different. My wife and i have studied these with great care, going back and forth into the garden to examine the flower. We have concluded that the Adobe DNG Profile Editor camera profiles give more realistic results.

It is also relevant that there are differences amongst the renditions (bottom row and top right image) produced with the various camera profiles generated using Adobe DNG Profile Editor with different reference images reflecting different conditions of light.

The next example shows that choosing a different base profile can make a difference too.


0578 02 2014_06_07 Example 02 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The images can be interpreted as in the first image, from the titles above and below the images. Apart from the Lightroom Standard profile version at the top left, the other three renditions used profiles based on the same ColorChecker reference image. What is different here is that the image at the bottom right is based on a different base profile - Camera Natural. My wife and I concluded that Camera Neutral produced the most realistic colours of the base profiles that are available for the 70D.

Which colours are most affected by changing the camera profile used varies from image to image. The following three composite images are from the FZ200. In each case

• The top left rendition uses the inbuilt Lightroom Adobe Standard camera profile, and the rendition to the right of it uses a camera profile generated using the x-rite software from a ColorChecker reference image captured in overcast condition.

• the bottom left rendition uses a camera profile generated using the Adobe software from the same "overcast" ColorChecker reference image.

• the middle and right bottom images use camera profiles generated using the Adobe software from Colorchecker reference images captured in different light conditions.

In the first and second examples there are significant differences between the Adobe Standard rendition, the x-rite generated rendition and the three Adobe generated renditions. There is less variation amongst the Adobe generated renditions, but there is some. Of the three of them, when flicking between the larger, individual versions, it seems to me that the Sunny version is more different from the other two Adobe versions in the first of these examples, but the Dawn version is more different in the second example. In the third example I'm not convinced I see any difference between the three Adobe generated versions.


0578 03 2014_06_07 Example 3 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr



0578 04 2014_06_07 Example 4 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr



0578 05 2014_06_07 Example 5 by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


And my conclusions from all this?

• I think it is worthwhile (for me) to use camera-specific profiles.
• I prefer the Adobe generated profiles, and of those, for the 70D, I prefer those using the Camera Neutral base profile.
• I think getting the White balance right has a very large impact on how images look, and I shall continue to take white balance readings from time to time during a session.
• I think camera profiles generated from reference images captured in different conditions can have a significant impact on how images look, probably more so as you get nearer to dawn and dusk. When I have developed a more complete set of profiles I think I will be using a relatively small set of camera profiles for each camera based on a small number of different light conditions. I will do some more experimentation, but I suspect I may stop capturing ColorChecker reference images quite soon.
• Lastly, if I knew then what I know now, I probably would not have purchased an x-rite ColorChecker Passport. It costs about £65, You can buy similarly sized colour charts for £12-15, and my preferred software is free. If starting again, I would buy a cheaper ColorChecker card and see how it went. It is possible that the x-rite chart is particularly accurate in its colours, but I have no way of knowing that. I would try the less expensive approach and see how it went.

 

[GardenersHelper]

One thing leads to another ....

This is a condensed version of a story that played out over several days and several thousand image captures in our garden. I have only glanced at a handful of these images yet, so I don't know about image quality, but the capturing of them provided a lot of information about the usability of the various options discussed here. I'll come back to image quality issues another time.

There are two strands to the story that were actually intertwined, but I have separated them out here to make things easier to follow.


Working with flash

I had come to the conclusion that the problem I had using flash on 70D was getting enough illumination on the subject to be able to use very small apertures.

I decided to try a Manfrotto Variable Friction Magic Arm, with one end fixed to the tripod with a Manfrotto Super Clamp, and on the other end a ball head with the flash unit on it, connected by cable to the camera hot shoe. I put a cheap, 8" x 8" soft box that I recently bought from eBay on to the flash unit. (I had tried the soft box with the flash on the camera hot shoe but the diffuser was too large to sit properly in a usable position.) The soft box has two diffusion layers, both attached with Velcro, the top layer across the whole of the front of the box, a smaller inner layer inside the box covering the central area.

Depending on the position of the subject, tripod and arm, the Super Clamp could be fixed to the top of one of the tripod legs (for subjects low down/near the ground when the tripod's central column is reversed and pointing downwards), or for subjects higher up (when the central column is pointing upwards), fixed near the top of the tripod's vertical column or near the end of the horizontal arm.


0586 08 2014_06_14 P1390343 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0586 14 2014_06_14 P1390352 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

There are more pictures of this setup here.

This setup let me get the flash really near to subjects, and that provided enough illumination to use f/22 with ISO 100, which was what I was aiming for. The quality of the light from the diffuser seemed good, and with the large diffuser close to the subject there was less of an issue with highlights than with the other setups I have tried.

So it worked, but it was somewhat complicated and slow to set up for each shot, first lining up the shot with the flash out of the way, then loosening the arm and bringing the flash into position, and taking the shot. As well as being slow to deploy, which meant some subjects flew off in the meantime, other subjects were frightened off as the diffuser closed in.

After the test session I dissembled the gear, but a little later I noticed a fly I wanted to photograph. Rather than take the time to re-rig everything I picked up the FZ200, put the flash on the hot shoe with my home made bowl diffuser and went back to where the fly had been. It had gone, but there were other flies around, and I fell into photographing them. I was working hand held.

After a while it struck me that I was finding it much quicker and easier to get shots lined up than with the 70D. This was the case if I was working hand held, which was obviously quicker than using the complicated tripod setup with the 70D, but it was also the case with the FZ200 on the tripod with hot shoe flash and diffuser, because there was no need to manipulate the arm and flash into position. I could simply line up shots and capture them. Also, with the home made bowl diffuser not needing to be moved into position, and not being so close to the subject, the subjects weren't frigthened off.

Still using the fZ200, I then decided to take the top diffusion layer off of the soft box and use it to replace the polystyrene plate that I was using as the diffusion layer for my home made diffuser. It seemed to diffuse as well as the polystyrene bowl, and it let more light through, which was helpful given my issues with illumination levels. This in turn led me to wonder if it would make it more practical to use my home made diffuser on the 70D, especially since Deb (@Wdesigndeb) had proved that setting the flash to wide angle provided more light with her setup, which I confirmed was the case for my setup too.

So, I went back out to test the home made diffuser on the 70D. With the flash set to wide angle, and with the new diffusion layer, it delivered enough light for me to work with ISO 400 and f/22. That is fine, because ISO 400 on the 70D is at least as good as ISO 100 on the FZ200.

I worked for a little while with the 70D on my favourite Choisya bush, which had a selection of medium to smallish flies and a smallish spider to photograph. Then I swapped the home made diffuser over to the FZ200 and worked on the same bush and subjects. I worked hand held. Here is how it worked out. (A lot of this applies to working with a tripod as well.)

• My impression was that it is more difficult to find the subject with the 70D.

• I have thought this before, but having done some tests indoors under more controlled conditions I can't pin down why this should be the case. With either camera, the achromat needs to be around a particular distance from the subject (for example about four inches for the Raynox 250) for the subject to be visible; nearer or further than that the subject goes so out of focus that it merges with the background and becomes invisible. Controlled tests indicated that the range in which a subject is discernible seems much the same for the two cameras, so I really don't know what the problem is. (I had assumed that the FZ200 lets you see what is going on over a much wider range of distances from the subject, but that appears not to be the case). Perhaps there really isn't any difference between the cameras in this regard.

• In order to find the subject (and to refind it having lost it, which is easy to do) I zoom right out and adjust the distance until the scene comes somewhat into focus, at which point the subject is usually fairly easy to find, and then centre the subject in the frame and then zoom back in again. This is easier with the FZ200, partly because the zooming is done with a little lever around the shutter button, which has less tendency to induce lateral (subject-losing) movements than turning the focus ring on the 70D, and partly because the distance between the achromat and the subect doesn't change as I zoom with the FZ200 (because I have the achromat mounted on a fixed tube and not on the camera lens). In contrast, the 55-250 on the 70D extends just over two inches going from minimum to maximum zoom, and the camera has to be moved the same amount in the opposite direction to compensate for this, risking losing the subject again during the manoeuvre, and involving more adjustments when the framing is about right in order to get the working distance right again.

• Having found the subject, it is more difficult and takes longer to gain focus with the 70D than the FZ200 (this is using live view with the LCD in both cases).

• When using autofocus, which I do a lot, with the FZ200 I can move the camera until the subject comes into focus and then pull it back very slightly and take the shot (sounds odd, but this works better than taking the shot when the subject is in sharpest focus). I can "read" the situation visually and gain focus pretty reliably, and quickly. With the 70D it often takes several attempts, sometimes more, to get the autofocus to lock on, and occasionally it seems more or less impossible to get it to lock on.

• When using rocking manual focus the better screen on the 70D helps, but the FZ200 screen is generally good enough. In both cases I can rock while viewing the whole scene so as to retain the composition while seeking the focus point.

• With the 70D it is hit and miss as to exactly where the centre of focus falls. This is partly because of the large size of the 70D's focus box, as previously discussed. The issue in the next bullet may make the situation worse.

• My hands shake, so the image on the LCD jumps around. The live view image seemed to jump around much more on the 70D than on the FZ200. However, this is another area where controlled tests indoors failed to confirm the impression I got working out of doors in the breeze. Be that as it may, when outdoors it seemed to me that when working hand held with the Raynox 250 on the FZ200 at around 1:1 and a bit beyond, I had a perhaps 25% hit rate when it was breezy and perhaps 75% or more hit rate when it was relatively still in terms of getting the centre of focus where I wanted it and composing the shot with the subject roughly where I wanted it in the frame. I felt these percentages were probably closer to zero for the 70D, so much so in fact that I gave up trying to use the 70D and just used the FZ200. To see how focus point placement turned out I will have to examine the images on the PC, because unlike with the FZ200 I have no idea where the centre of focus falls when capturing images with the 70D. With composition though it was easy to see, as it was happening - composition was much more random with the 70D. I gave up trying to put the subject where I wanted it in the frame and instead concentrated on just getting the subject somewhere in the frame. As to why I can't replicate these results indoors is a mystery to me.

Overall, despite having (I think) now cracked the flash illumination issue for the 70D, and despite not understanding quite why it should be the case and not being able to replicate some of the problems under more controlled conditions indoors, I find it difficult not to conclude that the FZ200 is, for me, for whatever reasons, a better instrument when it comes to using flash for real world shooting. And similar considerations apply to using the cameras hand held in good light.

I have captured quite a lot of flash shots, mainly using the FZ200, in the past few days and I obviously need to check the image quality, and a few somewhat like for like comparisons with the 70D may be possible. But subject to that turning out ok (as in "good enough"), I think I've done as much as I reasonably can to get flash working to my satisfaction on the 70D, and on balance I think I'll stick with the FZ200 for flash work. I may well also continue to use it for natural light invertebrate shots where a nimble response is needed, both tripod assisted and hand held.

For slower, more considered tripod shots of invertebrates, my preference is still for the 70D, as it is, very much, when it comes to botanical subjects, for which I rarely think of using the FZ200 these days, unless I have it in my hands and notice a flower to photograph during the course of a predominantly invertebrate session at one of the nature reserves.




Continued in next post ....

 

[GardenersHelper]

Using a tripod

I have been impressed with the lightness of the Benro tripod and its quick and easy to use quick release levers. It works well with the Velbon arm. It is also much easier to reverse the column than with my other two tripods, and that is something I do a lot, preferably quickly. The Manfrotto pistol grip makes reversing the central column even easier and faster, and the one-handed usability of the pistol grip is excellent.

However, with more experience of this setup, all is not sweetness and light, particularly in relation to the Manfrotto pistol grip.

• The size of the pistol grip means that the minimum height of the camera lens from the ground is about a foot. I bought the GorillaPod specifically to cope with lower shots, but it is quite slow to make the change between tripod and GorillaPod and then back again.

• Much more seriously, it turns out that the pistol grip does not have a strong enough grip for my purposes. I had read of people having their full frame cameras on the pistol grip complete with battery packs and the rig being "rock solid". It turns out that when I attached a flash unit to my 70D and put it in positions like this or others which exert similar forces, which is not unusual, it slips.

0582 06 2014_06_09 P1840476 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Indeed, I have begun to experience slippage sometimes with just the camera attached. There is a wheel you can turn to increase the friction, and if you tighten it up to the very maximum amount (which takes a lot of turning), it will hold camera and flash steady in such difficult positions. However, it then becomes almost impossible to reposition the grip; you have to turn the wheel back again to loosen the movement. And then the risk of rotation arises again. I found the uncertainty as to how much to tighten and whether it is going to rotate or not difficult to deal with - it took my mind off of the photography.

I had these thoughts in the back of my mind when I thought about the Magic arm no longer being needed if I wanted to use flash with the 70D. As well as the Magic arm and the Super Clamp, I had a second Super Clamp which I had thought of using to attach my circular diffuser/reflector to the tripod, but it turned out that the two plamps that I already had are better for that job.


0586 22 2014_06_14 P1390364 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The thought struck me that perhaps I could use the Magic arm instead of the the Velbon arm, perhaps with my ordinary ball head rather than the pistol grip. I tried attaching a Super clamp to the top of the central column on the Velbon tripod. The setup worked, but the central column had a tendency to rotate unless the it was upright, or very nearly so. Unfortunately, this is often not possible - with the arm outstretch in one direction the central column often has to lean in the opposite direction so as to shift the centre of gravity of the rig into the triangle formed by the tripod legs. The Velbon tripod has an anti-rotation lever for the central column, but it is not strong enough to prevent the rotation. I tried my heavier Cullman tripod but that had the same problem.

I then tried my original, heavy, metal tripod. It has one clear advantage over the other two tripods - the cross-section of the central column is not circular. It has three rounded parts and three flat parts, and so of course does the centre of the tripod into which it fits. This, along with a silly latch-type device inside the opening in the centre of tripod, makes it an awkward job to reverse the column, but it has the great merit in this context that it cannot rotate.

I put one Super Clamp on the top of the central column, and one on the bottom. It is easy to swap the Magic arm between them. Here are some examples of the configurations that are possible using the Magic arm in this way.


0587 01 2014_06_16 P1840524 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0587 04 2014_06_16 P1840527 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0587 07 2014_06_16 P1840531 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0587 10 2014_06_16 P1840535 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Using plamps to add a diffuser ...


0587 14 2014_06_16 P1840539 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

... or reflector ...


0587 17 2014_06_16 P1840543 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

... is fine.

There are more pictures of Magic arm configurations here.

The Magic arm is very versatile, and it does seem to lock rigid if you tighten it up enough (which is easy with the big wheel to turn), even in very stressful positions like the third one shown here. It needs about four half turns to take it from manoueverable to rigid. Turning the wheel tightens the joint between the two halves of the arm, and also the ball joints at the ends.

Using the Magic arm made me realise that with the Velbon arm you have far less flexibility. You have the most options with the Velbon arm on the top of the central column, in which case it can rotate 360 degrees horizontally and 180 degrees vertically. This lets you traverse a lot of the surface of an imaginary sphere, centred on the pivot point where the Velbon arm is attached to the tripod's central column. Unlocking the arm to move it around needs a simple turn of the handle on the other end of the arm from the extending part of the arm. Unlocking, moving, and relocking is a one-handed operation (with the other hand on the camera, changing its orientation to complement the movement of the arm).

If you want to get to a position inside that hemisphere you have to separately adjust the extending part of the arm, which involves unscrewing a locking knob, winding a handle (perhaps after folding it out first into the usable position) and then tightening the locking knob.

There is much less flexibility when working low down, with the Velbon Arm at the bottom of the now reversed tripod central column. The legs get in the way and leave only a small range of movement, and the handle end of the arm can also prevent some otherwise possibly movements if it hits the ground when the extending part of the arm is pointing somewhat upwards.

With the Magic arm fixed at the top of the tripod central column you also have a (more or less) sphere to move about in, with a radius of roughly twice that with the Velbon arm. And in a single move you can get to almost any point within that sphere. And when working low down, with the Magic arm attached to the bottom Super clamp, more positions are reachable than with the Velbon arm.

Other pros and cons

• Turning the handle on the Magic arm takes longer and needs more effort than turning the handle on the Velbon arm (but it gives all the available flexibility, rather than needing a separate operation with the Velbon arm to get some of the flexibility.
• Reversing the central column on the Benro tripod may be slightly faster than moving the Magic arm between the upper and lower Super clamps, although that may just be a matter of practice with the Magic arm. There isn't a great deal of difference in any case.

• Although more flexible, and apparently more reliable in supporting the required weights and forces, the Magic arm rig is less rigid and "gives" more during tripod-assisted working and "settles" a greater distance when you take your hands away for hands-off shots, which may make composition more difficult (I need more practice with the Magic arm rig to see if this is a serious issue. It may be a case of how you hold the camera and bell head while composing a shot).

• The Magic arm rig is heavy. The Benro tripod rig (currently with the pistol grip on the Velbon arm) is much lighter.

I think I will try one and the other as the mood takes me and see if, in real world use, one or other ends up as a clear favourite. Or perhaps, like the cameras, it may be a case of finding out which is best for what.

What about some images then?

I'll work through the images I've captured in the past few days and If there are some half decent ones I'll probably post (some of) them in the forum rather than in this thread. Maybe some here if there are any that seem appropriate - comparisons, examples or whatever.

 

[Wdesigndeb]

Excellent post! I've been looking at getting a softbox about the size of the one you bought, but as you find it a bit bulky, I'm going to rethink that.

Your setup shots are especially interesting as I've just received a Manfrotto Snake Arm and super clamp. My intention is to attach it to my monopod to hold my flash off camera. I chose the snake arm over the magic arm because I'm thinking that it could double as a support handle when rocking the camera.

The super clamp is quite heavy, but the arm itself is made of aluminum so it's fairly lightweight.

Yes...if you get a chance post some sample shots.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Excellent post! .

Thanks Deb. One of the things I love about these on line conversations is that they can get you to places you wouldn't otherwise get to.....

I've been looking at getting a softbox about the size of the one you bought, but as you find it a bit bulky, I'm going to rethink that..

It was only fractionally too large. It was the flash end of it that was the problem. The softbox is made of fabric stretched over a wire frame and the lower part of the frame pressed against the flash unit and raised the front of the softbox so light couldn't get to nearby subjects. (The two boxes are 4 inches and 6 inches away from the front of the lens, the working distances for the Raynox 250 and 150 respectively.)


0588 01 2014_06_16 P1400502 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I had tried to bend the bottom part of the frame but the wire is really strong and I couldn't. However ...

after capturing that image I took a hacksaw to the softbox, and cut out a three inch or so section of the frame. I was ready for it all to collapse at that point, but it didn't. Here is what the unmessed with top of the frame looks like


0588 02 2014_06_16 P1400551 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

And here is what the bottom of the frame looked like after I cut out the section I'm holding in this image.


0588 03 2014_06_16 P1400554 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Afterwards, the softbox could sit lower and illuminate subjects not very far in front of the camera.


0588 04 2014_06_16 P1400550 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

Here is the image showing on the LCD screen. It was captured using the Raynox 250.


0588 05 2014_06_16 IMG_2825 1000h by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

The softbox now appears to work with all but one of my achromats: Canon 500D (not that I use flash very often with that), Raynox 150, Raynox 250 and (another) Raynox 150 and 250 stacked. With the FZ200 that gets me down to a scene width of about 5mm (a bit more than 4:1 in APS-C terms. It doesn't work with the Raynox MSN-202, which has a very small working distance.

I took several shots outside in the dark to make sure that I wasn't getting confused by light reflected from the walls indoors. It worked fine.

I'll try doing some test shots with invertebrates tomorrow to get a reality check.

Your setup shots are especially interesting as I've just received a Manfrotto Snake Arm and super clamp. My intention is to attach it to my monopod to hold my flash off camera. I chose the snake arm over the magic arm because I'm thinking that it could double as a support handle when rocking the camera.

Creative thinking. I like it.

The super clamp is quite heavy, but the arm itself is made of aluminum so it's fairly lightweight.

I looked at the Snake Arm. I'll be interested to know how you get on with it.

Yes...if you get a chance post some sample shots.

Will do.

 

[Wdesigndeb]

Good mod of the softbox. The pic really illustrates the problem with the original. I would never have thought of removing part of the frame to adjust the fit.

I had a quick play with the snake arm tonight and so far it looks like it is going to work well. As far as the super clamp goes, I found that I really had to tighten down the screw that holds the arm into the super clamp because I was getting some slippage right at the join when I attached the flash. It's rated to hold studio lights and cameras so I'm putting it down to user error.

While reading your response about creative thinking it dawned on me that the cheap radio trigger I use for manual off camera flash will also function as a remote shutter trigger. I am thinking I could attach it to the monopod or arm and then I don't have to touch the camera once I set my focal length - just rock and tap the button. I'm waiting on a new ettl cord so that frees up my trigger.

 

[Tintin124]

Just trying to catchup lots to re read I think...

As for softbox... just remember that is now a massive massive light source compared to subject.

This for instance...


20140530_105603 by bthomas124, on Flickr

Gives me very soft light up to 4X magnification.

It is mounted via a straight and c bracket both cheap. C bracket is particular bad at loosen. But it gives light such as this...


Small Wasp-9882-06 by bthomas124, on Flickr

So my thinking is maybe unnecessary large softbox as that for use on such small subjects. I find that softbox (yes I have one) very good for larger subjects such as my cat and people's heads. Provides the soft light needed but you might be just wasting light using it on such small subjects. Just a thought.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Good mod of the softbox. The pic really illustrates the problem with the original. I would never have thought of removing part of the frame to adjust the fit.

Normally I'm not too bright with that sort of thing, so I'm pleasantly surprised that it worked.

I had a quick play with the snake arm tonight and so far it looks like it is going to work well. As far as the super clamp goes, I found that I really had to tighten down the screw that holds the arm into the super clamp because I was getting some slippage right at the join when I attached the flash. It's rated to hold studio lights and cameras so I'm putting it down to user error.

Are you using a camera stud? I read in a review that you don't need one if you are just using a Super clamp with a Magic arm, so I didn't get one. No matter how tight I turned the screw the arm would rotate. I then purchased a camera stud and then it worked fine. The camera stud has hexagonal ends which marry up with the hexagonal hole in the Super clamp, so the stud can't rotate. You don't have to tighten the screw all that hard when using a camera stud.

I say it worked fine, well it did, in the sense that the stud wont rotate inside the Superclamp. However, you then have to screw the arm onto the stud. That joint can loosen and rotate. I have my arm set up so the rotational force is always being applied clockwise, thus tightening the joint between the arm and the stud rather than loosening it (followed by a potentially catastrophic rotation).

While reading your response about creative thinking it dawned on me that the cheap radio trigger I use for manual off camera flash will also function as a remote shutter trigger. I am thinking I could attach it to the monopod or arm and then I don't have to touch the camera once I set my focal length - just rock and tap the button. I'm waiting on a new ettl cord so that frees up my trigger.

I think you've lost me here. You presumably have a trigger in your hand. Is there a paired trigger part that fits on to the camera? If so, what does it connect to on the camera? (I'm assuming that the ettl cord will be connecting the flash to the camera hot shoe).

 

[Tintin124]

I think you've lost me here. You presumably have a trigger in your hand. Is there a paired trigger part that fits on to the camera? If so, what does it connect to on the camera? (I'm assuming that the ettl cord will be connecting the flash to the camera hot shoe).

Think deb is talking rf-302 or rf-522 from Yongnuo or as such you have a receiver transceiver (receiver in this case) attached to your camera and a receiver transceiver (transciever) in your hand

Then you can remote fire. I have the 302 and they are great. As they do do both functions receiver and transmit.

 

[GardenersHelper]

So my thinking is maybe unnecessary large softbox as that for use on such small subjects. I find that softbox (yes I have one) very good for larger subjects such as my cat and people's heads. Provides the soft light needed but you might be just wasting light using it on such small subjects. Just a thought.

You may be right. I went out this morning with the FZ200 to a shady part of the garden and photographed mainly flies and a couple of spiders on their webs. I used the softbox mainly, but briefly swapped to my home made diffuser for a while.

The softbox works, in both tripod-assisted and hand-held modes. It gets in the way for some shots, and makes some shots impossible that are doable with the smaller home made diffuser.

I suspect the softbox may produce a mellower, less harshly contrasty illumination than my home made diffuser, and may produce less troubling highlights on shiny subjects. I need to do some comparison shots to see if this really is the case.

[Edit: remember too that I typically photograph rather larger subjects than you, working around ? 1:2 to 2:1 or so.]

I haven't looked through the 700 images from the session in any detail, but here are seven I picked out from a quick skim to illustrate the illumination I got from the softbox. These have had quick processing just using Lightroom. All have had default colour noise reduction, an exposure increase of half a stop, Whites +15, Blacks -15, Saturation -5 and a ColorChecker Passport FZ200-specific camera profile applied. All were exported to JPEG with Lightroom "Standard" output sharpening. The only different processing amongst the images was that several had shadows lifted, by differing amounts.


0589 1 2014_06_17 P1400611 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0589 2 2014_06_17 P1400640 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0589 3 2014_06_17 P1400661 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0589 4 2014_06_17 P1400832 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0589 5 2014_06_17 P1400896 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0589 6 2014_06_17 P1400993 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0589 7 2014_06_17 P1410160 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

 

[GardenersHelper]

Think deb is talking rf-302 or rf-522 from Yongnuo or as such you have a receiver transceiver (receiver in this case) attached to your camera and a receiver transceiver (transciever) in your hand

Then you can remote fire. I have the 302 and they are great. As they do do both functions receiver and transmit.

I wondered if that was the case. So does the receiver have a pass-through hot shoe that lets the camera control the flash? (i.e. stack the ttl cord from the flash on top of the receiver in the camera hot shoe? (Or the other way around perhaps.)

 

[GardenersHelper]

You may be right. I went out this morning with the FZ200 to a shady part of the garden and photographed mainly flies and a couple of spiders on their webs. I used the softbox mainly, but briefly swapped to my home made diffuser for a while.

I forgot to mention that:

I was also testing my Magic arm tripod, using tripod-assisted mode where my hands stay on the camera. It worked very nicely.

I worked hand-held some of the time. I don't know if any of these were hand held.

I used the Raynox 250 for all of these shots.

You may notice the shutter speeds are rather fast for flash shots, 1/1000 sec and 1/1250 sec. The FZ200 syncs flash at any shutter speed (that is normal flash, not HSS/FP) so I was basically using manual mode with minimum aperture of f/8 (roughly equals f/22 on APS-C in terms of dof) and shutter speed 1/1000 sec. However, I accidentally changed it to 1/1250 at some point (rather too easy to do on the FZ200, as is accidentally changing the aperture).

The camera was in manual mode - the flash was using TTL and I occasionally altered the Flash Exposure Compensation.

 

[Wdesigndeb]

Think deb is talking rf-302 or rf-522 from Yongnuo or as such you have a receiver transceiver (receiver in this case) attached to your camera and a receiver transceiver (transciever) in your hand

Then you can remote fire. I have the 302 and they are great. As they do do both functions receiver and transmit.

Sorry about the seemingly delayed response....time difference can be a problem sometimes.

Bingo! I have the rf-602...

Nick, a cord attaches to the receiver and you plug it into the port on the side of your camera so it leaves the hot shoe free for the ettl cord when using it as a remote. When using it as a trigger the transmitter sits in the hot shoe and the receiver screws onto the bottom of your flash. No pass through for ettl on this old model. With that awesome new dslr you have a built in trigger, right?

 

[Tintin124]

The rf-603 supports ettl.. so just a cable between the hot shoe and trigger port and that's it.

As for your images yes you have soft light but I suspect that is due to a portion of the large softbox and not the whole thing.

Something worth testing as I was surprised how soft the light was on my mini setup (also made it less cumbersome) as I was looking at similar setup to you. Straight bracket with flex arm and the big softbox.

Just be aware of the potential of wasting light. Eg being sent to space or the background when wanting to light the subject.

 

[LCPete]

Hi Nick I haven't had much time lately so haven't been able to post much
I am going away as well soon so will be a couple of weeks before I can catch up
anyway sorry to hear that you are having trouble with the 322rc2 ballhead, I wonder if yours is faulty?
I have never had mine move with the camera on it, I don't use a flash though
I have just had a look at mine with it locked off I have to use a fair amount of force to get it to move and I'm only half way with the friction setting if that
I have just tried winding the friction wheel up to its maximum and its still possible to use, pulling the trigger in I can still move the head around its stiff but usable
I normally have the friction about a third on from the minimum setting and the up down and twisting adjustments are easy to do and the thing doesn't move at all when I let go of the trigger

 

[LCPete]

your reflector set up looks very impressive, that's something that I keep meaning to try but never get round to
I think that Bryn may be right about you being able to get away with a smaller diffuser, certainly for trips out to the reserves, for the garden I guess the size isn't such a problem

 

[LCPete]

Really good fly shots too very good detail

 

[Wdesigndeb]

The camera stud has hexagonal ends which marry up with the hexagonal hole in the Super clamp, so the stud can't rotate.

I say it worked fine, well it did, in the sense that the stud wont rotate inside the Super clamp.

Yes, the arm has the hexagonal end where it attaches to the super clamp. I've had another try at it and once I was mindful of the clockwise rotation it is good and solid. Thanks for the tip.

 

[GardenersHelper]

I suspect the softbox may produce a mellower, less harshly contrasty illumination than my home made diffuser, and may produce less troubling highlights on shiny subjects. I need to do some comparison shots to see if this really is the case.

I did a couple of pairs of comparison shots but called it off having realised that I did want a larger diffuser than my current home made diffuser. Because of the type of shots I capture I do want the background illuminated as far as is practical, but in comparing the two diffusers I realised that with my small home made diffuser the exact angle at which it was mounted had a large affect on whether/how much different areas of backgrounds were illuminated. I wanted to try and reduce/avoid this dependency, and that seemed to need a larger diffuser. However, the softbox was cumbersome and it left the near areas of scenes unilluminated and could not illuminate the subject using the MSN-202.

So I built a new diffuser, using a round aluminium dish from a purchased apple crumble, a flattened rectangular aluminium ready meal dish, the flat portions of two aluminium ginger beer cans, staples, gaffa tape, velcro and the inner and outer diffusion layers from the softbox.


0590 1 2014_06_17 P1840544 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0590 2 2014_06_17 P1840545 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0590 3 2014_06_17 P1840546 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0590 4 2014_06_17 P1840547 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I gave it a rather hurried test in the half hour before the Brazil/Mexico game started. I'll put some images from that test in the next post.

 

[GardenersHelper]

To give my new pie dish diffuser a quick initial test I went to the same area of the garden as this morning, looking for similar subjects. Like this morning, I was using the FZ200 and Raynox 250 with the FZ200 minimum aperture of f/8, ISO 100 and a shutter speed of 1/1250 sec, and using a tripod-assisted approach with my new Magic arm tripod arrangement. I hope to be able to give the new diffuser a more thorough workout in the next day or two.

The images have been given quick processing using just Lightroom, similar to the processing of this morning's examples with the softbox.


0591 1 2014_06_17 P1410351 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0591 2 2014_06_17 P1410358 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

This is what was going past the fly in the previous shot.

0591 3 2014_06_17 P1410361 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

I'm not keen on black backgrounds, but I only got one shot at this subject and so couldn't search for a better background for the shot.

0591 4 2014_06_17 P1410385 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0591 5 2014_06_17 P1410387 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0591 6 2014_06_17 P1410402 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr


0591 7 2014_06_17 P1410411 Edit Export standard by gardenersassistant, on Flickr

 

[GardenersHelper]

Sorry about the seemingly delayed response....time difference can be a problem sometimes.

Bingo! I have the rf-602...

Nick, a cord attaches to the receiver and you plug it into the port on the side of your camera so it leaves the hot shoe free for the ettl cord when using it as a remote. When using it as a trigger the transmitter sits in the hot shoe and the receiver screws onto the bottom of your flash. No pass through for ettl on this old model. With that awesome new dslr you have a built in trigger, right?

Thanks for the explanation Deb.

Built in trigger? Not sure. I can control external flash units using the built in flash or a flash unit in the hot shoe. Would that be it, or is there some other trigger mechanism?

 

[GardenersHelper]

The rf-603 supports ettl.. so just a cable between the hot shoe and trigger port and that's it.

As for your images yes you have soft light but I suspect that is due to a portion of the large softbox and not the whole thing.

Something worth testing as I was surprised how soft the light was on my mini setup (also made it less cumbersome) as I was looking at similar setup to you. Straight bracket with flex arm and the big softbox.

Just be aware of the potential of wasting light. Eg being sent to space or the background when wanting to light the subject.

I think we have a different take on this Bryn. I want to send light to the background (see the post about the new diffuser I made).

I had a think about your point about wasted light, and Deb's point about using ISO 400 to reduce recycle times. So in this evening's brief test with the new diffuser I did a couple of sequences of shots as fast as I wanted to, which turns out to have had about 2 second intervals shot to shot. (This was with ISO 100 btw.) I'll try to remember tomorrow to push it harder, with faster shot to shot times, to see what the limits are, because occasionally (when there is some action in progress) I do want to shoot faster.

 

[GardenersHelper]

Hi Nick I haven't had much time lately so haven't been able to post much
I am going away as well soon so will be a couple of weeks before I can catch up
anyway sorry to hear that you are having trouble with the 322rc2 ballhead, I wonder if yours is faulty?
I have never had mine move with the camera on it, I don't use a flash though
I have just had a look at mine with it locked off I have to use a fair amount of force to get it to move and I'm only half way with the friction setting if that
I have just tried winding the friction wheel up to its maximum and its still possible to use, pulling the trigger in I can still move the head around its stiff but usable
I normally have the friction about a third on from the minimum setting and the up down and twisting adjustments are easy to do and the thing doesn't move at all when I let go of the trigger

I have wondered if it is faulty, but I don't think I'd be able to prove it. I imagine that anyone else looking at it would probably conclude that it works fine. I suspect most people mount the quick release plate on the side of the grip, for either left or right handed use with the grip on a vertical column. I use a horizontal column and the quick release plate is mounted on the top of the grip. This increases the distance of the camera from the ballhead by several inches, increasing the turning moment significantly. That distance is increased by 3 1/2 inches with a fairly heavy (two-way) focus rail (increasing the turning moment of the camera). And it's not just the camera. On top of the camera I mount a fairly heavy flash unit, which is even further away from the ballhead. And then (in order to work in portrait mode, or point straight down) I put all this stuff horizontal, maximising the rotational forces.

Like you say, with the friction wheel up to its maximum the movement gets pretty stiff. It wouldn't be so bad if it was quicker to alter from "Max friction" to something which is (for me) more usable. And in any case, I think - I'm not sure about this - that I had a rotation when the friction wheel was tightened up all the way. Whether or not that is the case, I have become rather nervous when using the pistol grip, constantly aware that something nasty could happen to the camera. Not good.

Anyway, it's early days yet. I have two tripod rigs I can use, the heavy but very flexible and strong Magic arm rig and the light, less flexible Benro tripod/Velbon arm/Manfrotto pistol grip rig which suffers from rotational issues (not just the pistol grip - the central column has a rotational problem I can't get rid of no matter how hard I turn the central column's anti-rotation lock). As with the cameras, I think it's a question of using the various kit I have and working out which bits work best for what. That is a longer term thing I think once the excitement of having all this new kit to play with has worn off.

 

[GardenersHelper]

your reflector set up looks very impressive, that's something that I keep meaning to try but never get round to
I think that Bryn may be right about you being able to get away with a smaller diffuser, certainly for trips out to the reserves, for the garden I guess the size isn't such a problem

Really good fly shots too very good detail

Thanks Pete.

You'll see the latest diffuser developments!

 

[Wdesigndeb]

Thanks for the explanation Deb.

Built in trigger? Not sure. I can control external flash units using the built in flash or a flash unit in the hot shoe. Would that be it, or is there some other trigger mechanism?

I'm talking about your built in flash wireless trigger. My oldie doesn't have that so I had to by a separate trigger. You can get a remote shutter trigger or radio shutter trigger that is quite affordable from Canon.

 

[GardenersHelper]

I'm talking about your built in flash wireless trigger. My oldie doesn't have that so I had to by a separate trigger. You can get a remote shutter trigger or radio shutter trigger that is quite affordable from Canon.

Bear with me Deb - I'm getting confused by the terminology here.

There seem to be two things you can do, and three communications methods for doing them:

Two things you can do:

• set off the exposure (trigger the shutter) remotely
• have the camera trigger an off-camera flash

Three communications methods:

• Using cables
  
• Using light
  
• Using radio

I can set off the exposure using a shutter release cable.

I can have the camera trigger an off-camera flash,

• using a cable
  
• using light (from the onboard flash or a flash unit in the camera hot shoe)

Is the last of these using what you are referring to as the built in flash wireless trigger, or are you referring to a built in radio facility?

When you say "You can get a remote shutter trigger or radio shutter trigger that is quite affordable from Canon", is the remote shutter trigger an optical device, or is "remote shutter trigger" another term for "radio shutter trigger"?

Sorry to be a bit slow on the uptake here.

 

[Wdesigndeb]

To release the shutter you can get an infrared shutter trigger like this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/683524-REG/Canon_4524B001_RC_6_Wireless_Remote_Control.html

Or a radio one like this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/749996-REG/Vello_RW_C2_FreeWave_Wireless_Remote_Shutter.html

Or you can just use a shutter release cable. Correct?

The confusion about the flash trigger is on my part Nick. I thought Canon had built in a radio trigger, but optical is still better than nothing. If you are around other photographers shooting at the same time I suspect your flashes will be triggered by their flashes though.

 

[GardenersHelper]

To release the shutter you can get an infrared shutter trigger like this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/683524-REG/Canon_4524B001_RC_6_Wireless_Remote_Control.html

Or a radio one like this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/749996-REG/Vello_RW_C2_FreeWave_Wireless_Remote_Shutter.html

Or you can just use a shutter release cable. Correct?

The confusion about the flash trigger is on my part Nick. I thought Canon had built in a radio trigger, but optical is still better than nothing. If you are around other photographers shooting at the same time I suspect your flashes will be triggered by their flashes though.

That is extremely useful Deb, thanks so much.

I just read about infrared triggers - no good for me because of the line of sight issue. But radio - that looks very interesting. It seems to me that if I bought one of these and an extra cable I could trigger my Panasonic FZ200 and G3 and my Canon 70D wirelessly. I think I'll do that.

One thing though. They are designed to fit the receiver into the camera hot shoe, but there is no hot shoe passthrough. Presumably using the hot shoe is just so as to have a convenient place to fix the receiver. If so, presumably I could Velcro the receiver to the tripod and it should work ok, leaving the hot shoe available for the flash. Does that seem right to you?

 

[Wdesigndeb]

I found a review on Amazon.com that referred to the hot shoe attachment as optional. "The receiver is palm sized, except for the flash foot (fitted with a locking collar) optionally used to secure it to a flash shoe." So it looks to me that it doesn't have to be mounted in the hot shoe so you would have that free for your flash. That extra cable is brilliant!