Everything posted by Architeuthis
-
Favorite 18650 charger?
Thank you all for the interesting contributions...👍 I am currently using a "DlyFull A4" that is very similar to the Nitcore Ci4, but it is powered by regular line voltage. I am considering now acquiring the Nitcore, powered just by USB-C, no extra adapter, in order to save weight for travel... Could I use the charger of my Notebook, that I have with me anyhow, to power the Nitcore charger? It is for Macbook Pro M1, has USB-C out with 96 W. Already now I often exchange the USB-C to MagSafe cable with a regular USB-C cable and use the adapter to charge other items, e.g. powerbank (145 W/25 Ah), handy etc. ... What specs. should a line to USB-C adapter have to power the Nitcore sufficiently and in addition also other items (from Notebook to handy), when acquiring an additional power adapter? Wolfgang
-
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
Hi Dreifish, Maybe you could adjust the exposure to a level so that the brightness in the center of the strobe beam is the same. I think then (and when the distance to the object was the same), one could judge easier whether there is a difference in light distribution and/or beam angle... Wolfgang
-
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
Yes, unfortunately the Backscatter graphs that I have posted show results from previous generation flashes... Important is, however, that the light falloff from center to border is in the range of -1.5 f-stops to -0.5 f-stops, depending on zone, flash and diffuser. This is much closer to the measurements that Chris made with your screenshorts, assuming he used a linear y-axis (?). So maybe Chris's measurements are not so far away from reality (but maybe not, because of the postprocessing problem, we need unprocessed test images)... => In any case, I find the graph from the "Retra-Study" weird (and as I wrote already, also the test photos look weird)- the light fall off in Zone 3 is -6 to -7 f-stops compared to the center (!!). Did they put a snoot on the flashes for testing... ? (seriously: this shows that one cannot test light distribution of UW strobes in air)
-
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
Thank you Chris, interesting! Is it this with or without diffusers (which diffuser if any)? Could you please also make a graph with HF-1 (with and w/o diffusers)? In case you normalize the brightness of each individual strobe/diffuser combination to the value at "0" (x-axis), the center, The even/uneven light distribution would be even better visible for everybody. Intensity comparison could be made separately from the even/uneven brightness distributions, just by comparing the absolute values in the center, e.g. bar diagrams... => I do not want to be the party-crasher, I hav a little bad feeling when I write this, BUT there is still a massive problem in all this comparison: Both when viewing the images and also when making quantitative measurements from them (the measurements provide, no doubt, comparable numbers. These numbers are, however, just the result of the intensity values on the processed image; we need, however, the unprocessed images in order to be able to compare.. => A meaningful comparison and analysis of the test images is only possible, when the totally unprocessed RAW files are compared, no processing at all. (in addition, the photos have to be taken at strictly standardized conditions. e.g. distance, clarity of water, camera settings (ISO, shutter, aperture) - hopefully Backscatter is doing so...). It would be great if Backscatter would make the original raw files available... Wolfgang
-
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
Here I have found some graphs from Backscatter, unfortunately mostly not the recent strobe generation (brightness vs. angle): https://www.backscatter.com/reviews/post/Retra-Flash-Underwater-Strobe-Test-and-Review I guess this is from the test shots (or similar shots) that Backscatter shows in the videos (and Dreifish uses for his comparison)... I hope it does not violate copyright, as I cite the source above (if yes, please delete): Here the graph w/o diffusers (brightness is given in f-stops, so f/22 is a the reference and f/16 means -1/f-stop and f/11 means -2/f-stops (?); beam angle is given in degree (°), I guess degree from center (or is it entire angle of view (?)): When compared to other pro-level strobes the Retra performed quite well in terms of brightness and consistency. And here the measurements from the test photos made with diffusers: Even with diffusers, the Retra still rises to the top of the test results. => The measured intensity falloff (in e.g. % from value in the center) is pretty similar for all the strobes tested without diffusers, in the range of approx. -1.5 f-stops from center to 90° (the Retra model tested has the steepest falloff). => When warm and white diffusers are used, the Retra model has still approx. -1.5 f-stop falloff (from center to 90°). All other strobes (and Retra with shark diffusers) improve to the range of approx. -0.5 f-stops to -1 f-stops falloff...
-
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
I fully agree that there should be some measurements, e.g. histograms (e.g. distance from center vs. intensity). Screenshots from videos are not suitable, the measured values depend a lot on postprocessing and how the video is viewed. It should be done from original, standardized, test shots in water and at distances that are realistic... Dreifish does a great job, I enjoy to see this comparison, but the comparison would be much more meaningful, when would be able to use the original testshots (in case they were done by Backscatter under standardized conditions)... I think the graph shown comes from the "Retra study": https://www.retra-uwt.com/pages/flashgun-light-comparison Retra say that the strobes were positioned 60cm away from a screen in air ((!); even the beam angle will differ in water compared to air. Not to speak about even or uneven distribution of intensity)). Please have a look at the intensity distribution in the figure with the original test photos, especially YS-D2 and Z330 without diffusers: => I have both YS-D2 and Z330 strobes, but I never have observed such a weird intensity distribution UW. It must be an artifact, produced by using the strobes in air. => To me the entire "study" is nonsense. Maybe one can use the original table for comparison, were parameters supplied by the manufacturers are listed. The measurements are not worth anything (sorry to say, but this is the case)... Wolfgang P.S.: I do not doubt that the Retras are excellent strobes. I think that Retra does not have it necessary to publish such "studies" to promote their strobes...
-
Backscatter In-Water Strobe Beam Testing
Thanks, very interesting comparison... 👍 Is it known to what angles (° field of view) the four different circles in the test image correspond? Also, what is the distance between flash and test image (the more distance the more even the light distribution will be; YS-D3 without diffuser looks like a catastrophy, I would say completely unusable (maybe the distance is much too short and does not reflect real life conditions?)? I find the results sobering. Only DS230 seem to deliver reasonable light distribution, the other flashes seem to deliver a hot spot in the middle, even with dome diffusers...😐 Were these images taken from the Backscatter videos? Do we know whether they do harsh postprocessing to make the entire videos looking nice in the Internet - many postprocessing manipulations will change the test images and make them unusable: e.g. the more the contrast slider is activated, the greater the difference in brightness between center and border will become. These manipulations may well be very different from video to video, depending on the person and the mood of the person who is doing it... (I hope the flashes perform better in real life and try to find arguments, still waiting for my pre-odered HF-1s...😊) Wolfgang
-
Tiny concealed gem: Providencia Island, Caribbean
I became aware of Providencia island as a diving destination, when I asked in Scubaboard for a Caribbean diving destination that still offers intact reefs and sealife and is not overrun by tourism (my Caribbean diving experience was, so far, limited to a stay in the early 90ies at Grand Cayman and two stays on the Florida Key Islands around 2000). Instigated by a very positive recommendation, Lisi, me and two friends (Franz and Gerdi) headed towards Providencia Island in March 2024... The tiny island belongs politically to Columbia, but is located in the western Caribbean approx. 150 km off the coast, at the geographical height of Nicaragua. It is located close to another, bigger, island, San Andres and belongs to the San Andres archipelago. Before I start to report about this remarkable diving and UW-photography journey, it is important to state that this is certainly NOT a diving destination for everybody. Do not attempt to undertake this trip, unless you are prepared to deal with the toils listed below, otherwise the trip may become a nightmare: (i) Arrival and departure to and from Providencia is very tedious: For us Austrians this means a flight from Vienna to Paris, followed by a long flight from Paris to Bogota, the capital of Columbia. After arriving at Bogota in the late evening and spending the night in a hotel near the airport, we took a flight from Bogota to San Andres. After spending another night in San Andres, we headed finally to our destination, Providencia. Satena, a small domestic airline, operates the route from San Andres to Providencia with small turboprop aircrafts that remind me at daring bumblebees (especially landing and taking off on the small landing strip on Providencia is an adventure for itself). The check-in luggage is restricted to 15 kg (), but more luggage is allowed upon extra payment, so no problem. The problem was that three suitcases got lost, already on the flight from Paris to Bogota and these delayed suitcases are not automatically transported to the final destination. It took us three days, a lot of efforts and nerves, numerous phonecalls and the dedicated help of Nelson, an employee of a concurrent domestic airline at San Andres, until we had our complete photographic equipment on site (we were three UW-photographers). Departure from Providencia was the same, but in reverse order, but this time there were no problems with luggage. Just count with three days for each direction... (ii) Tourism on Providencia island is simple. There has been once a small, single hotel with enclosed PADI diving base on the island, called "Sirius". The complex had been completely destroyed by Hurrican Iota in 2020. Since then, only very simple accomodation is available in private "Posadas" on bed and breakfast basis. There is no "cold" or "hot" water, it comes just at the temperature as it is available at the container on top of the building. Some apartments have a gas stove for preparing food. In SW-Bay (the biggest beach in Providencia) there was a a single and small restaurant ("Divino Nino") that offered delicious food for little money. For the spoiled ones amongst us, the choice between fish, shrimps or lobster may be a little bit repetitive, howsoever... I can say that the inhabitants of Providencia are very relaxed and exceptionally friendly to foreigners. Spanish is the official language, but they speak Creole amongst them and many know English. Few tourists from Colombia come to spend simple, nature bound, holidays. In addition to the general tourists, there are few divers, mostly from Colombia, but also others from all over the world (Providencia is not a complete insider tip any more). In the two weeks we stayed at Providencia, we met divers from Colombia, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany and USA. Daniel, the busy and helpful owner of "Sirius Diving" has established a new replacement diving base, located close to the original, but destroyed, one (there are plans to reestablish hotel and original diving base, but the opening day is uncertain...). The small island is located in Caribbean high seas and is surrounded by a massive reef. The diving spots, both on the outside as well as inside the reef, are reached by small boats. Visibility in "Carribbean blue" waters is good, I estimate 20m to 25m. The reefs are typical for the Carribean, with few stone corals, but plenty of horn and fan corals and impressive sponges. They looked completely intact to me, I could not see signs of bleaching or pollution (some hard corals were broken, presumably from the hurricane). Here a facette of the typical reefscape at the outer reef. While I was trying to adjust flashes and camera to make a photo of the reefscape and the three langusts, a juvenile reef shark swam into the frame and destroyed my composition . Sony A7R5, Canon 8-15mm @15mm, 140mm domeport, 1/160s, f/9, ISO 250, 2*Z330. The highlight for UW-photographers on Providencia island is certainly the Caribbean reef shark (Carcharhinus perezi). They live (still) in high numbers around the island. This species appears to be the Caribbean counterpart of the grey reefshark, that lives in the Indopacific (Carcharinhus amblyrynchus). They are "just" reefsharks, but some specimen can grow to quite formidable size (I estimate the individuals that we encountered to measure between 1 m and 2.5 m). The photo shows Gerdi taking a photo of a Carribbean reef shark at the outer reef: Sony A7R5, Sony 28-60mm @28mm, WACP-C, 1/200s, f/9, ISO 250, 2*Z330. These sharks are anything but shy and approach the divers as soon as the divers come close to the drop off at the outer reef (they are not fed or baited by the diving base). From few up to a dozen of these animals would encircle the divers during the entire dive and make outstanding motifs for UW photographers. Reef shark against the reef : Sony A7R5, Sony 20-70mm @20mm, 170mm domeport, 1/160s, f/9, ISO 400, 2*Z330. The Carribbean reefsharks at Providencia island are curious and investigative. Seldom but sometimes, they would come extremely close, almost touching the domeport, in order to check you out. At a few cm distance they would haul off and continue to encircle the divers at greater distance. Only once during the entire period of two weeks, a shark was exerting threatening behaviour against me, i.e. lowering his head and starting jittering with his pectoral fins just in front of me at arms length (I believe that this shark was feeling restricted, as I was positioning myself directly in his swimming direction to get a frontal photo, and Lisi, who was beside me, also taking photos, and the close coral wall dropoff - all contributed to the restriction). After Lisi and me swiftly retracted (better listen, when such an animals wants to tell you something ), the shark continued to swim speedily back and forth along the reef edge, repeatedly and fast opening and closing its mouth. At this point I should say that Carcharhinus perezi is considered harmless to humans, but attacks on humans after neglecting such threatening behaviour have been reported. Reef shark checking me out and hauling off afterwards: Sony A7R5, Sony 28-60mm @60mm, WACP-C, 1/160s, f/9, ISO 400, 2*Z330. A wreck, "El Planchon", is located at the bottom of the coral reefs surrounding Providencia island. Our guide, Carol, told us, that it had been a Colombian ship supporting German submarines with replenishment of all kind during WWII. When the end of the war was close, captain and crew decided that it is time to go home and sunk the ship upon translating their thoughts into action (happy people!). Today the wreck is home to triggerfish, groupers and impressive reefsharks as guardians. Grouper at "El Planchon": Sony A7R5, Sony 28-60mm @60mm, WACP-C, 1/200s, f/11, ISO 200, 2*Z330. The diving at Sirius diving base is typically done with the first dive in the morning at the outer reef and, after sufficient surface interval, the second dive in shallow and sheltered areas within the reef. These areas provide shelter for impressive schools of snappers, grunts and sweetlips, juvenile fish of all kind, puffer fish, nurse sharks and other kind of marine life (we even ecountered a group of friendly purpoises, but they were too far away to take reasonable photos in good quality). Mixed school of bluestriped grunts (Hemulon scirius) and French grunts (Hemulon flavilineatum ) at Tete's place: Sony A7R5, Sony 28-60mm @28mm, WACP-C, 1/160s, f/11, ISO 160, 2*Z330. Mixed swarm of French grunts (Hemulon flavilineatum) and squirrelfish (Holocentrus atcensionis). A school of other fish passes by in the background. Sony A7R5, Canon 8-15mm @15mm, 140mm domeport, 1/160s, f/16, ISO 320, 2*Z330. Closeup of a shool of grey grunts (Haemulon album): Sony A7R5, Sony 20-70mm @70mm, 170mm domeport, 1/200s, f/10, ISO 100, 2*Z330. West Atlantic trumpetfish (Aulostomus maculatus), well camouflaged in a gorgonian octocoral: Sony A7R5, Sony 20-70mm @70mm, 170mm domeport, 1/160s, f/11, ISO 100, 2*Z330. I must admit that I was so impressed by the variety of WA (and fishportrait) motifs (first of all the charismatic Charcharhinus perezi, that were an abundant motif at Providencia and whom I, personally, met the first time in my life), that I did not use my macro setup for even a single dive. Instead I was using WACP-C/Sony 28-60m, Canon 8-15mm and Sony 20-70mm for all dives (in this order). The period of two week diving was too short and it would have been better to stay for another, additional, week to exploit the beautiful macro motifs, including snails and shrimps, that we encountered... As a proof here a Flamingo tongue snail (Cyphoma gibbosus), feeding on gorgonia, taken with the fisheye lens: Sony A7R5, Canon 8-15mm @15mm, 140mm domeport, 1/160s, f/16, ISO 100, 2*Z330. The scubadiving holidays at Providencia island were an exceptional experience for all four of us, with font memories that will endure...
-
8-15 on Sony A7
- Mid-range macro recs for Sony FFs?
Thank you Phil, for this valuable summary of experience...👍 I have a question on Tamron 17-28 vs. Sony 16-25 (I currently own the Tamron and use it on A7R5): Did I read it correctly that IQ of the Sony is better compared to the Sony? Or do you recommend it, because it offers 16mm at the wide end, compared to 17mm (Tamron)? What about the 16-35mm GM (I+II) lenses? Do they perform equally well or are they just too expensive? Thanks, Wolfgang- Full Frame Bubble Burst
I believe that the "depth of field" argument applies mostly to macro images. When the ambient light is dim, the performace in the very edges is not really important. In addition, there are the WWL/WACP lenses that make FF photography at wider apertures very well possible... Wolfgang- Full Frame Bubble Burst
Great and vivid discussion here... Some comments were a little bit harsh, but I could not read any personal insultation here that would justify banning of a member... Wolfgang- Full Frame Bubble Burst
The choice of system/camera/lenses is, of course, very individual and different UW-photographers have different preferences... In early 2023, I switched from Olympus EM1II (MFT) to Sony A7R5 (FF). I am still experimenting and still do not have a final opinion, but it is unlikely that I ever will switch back to a MFT system. The FF system is better in many aspects (but, unfortunately, not in every aspect). Below the points that I find important to mention: #1.: 61 Mpixel vs. 20 Mpixel makes cropping much more forgivable. I am not using the native aspect ratio of the sensor all the time. I mostly show my photos to other people on a beamer that has an aspect ratio of 16:9 and therefore, whenever possible, I crop the final image for viewing to 16:9, to use the maximum of the projected area abd show a big slide (for print, I crop to the ratio of the print medium). When 16:9 is not so good for the motif, I take other ratios, as 3:2, 4:3 or even 1:1, depending what is the best to my feeling. This, together with a little bit of cropping, due to imperfect framing (well, i am not a perfect UW-photographer) makes already a lot of cropping, but in average, 40 Mpixel remain, what is still more than plenty... #2.: 14-bit vs. 12-bit RAW file. 14-bit give just a lot of more headroom in postprocessing, is it for enhancing the shadows or the adjustment of colors. Especially the better possibility to avoid blown-out sun, when the sun appears in the photo is important to me (of course overexposure of the sun has to be avoided when taking the photo, but upon postprocessing the better ability to enhance the shadows comes into the play). #3.: AF is working very well, both with EM1II and A7R5: I, personally, find that the difference in AF is overrated, when I read reviews and posts. For WA and normal range photos I find it, more or less, the same (at low light the EM1II was even slightly better, but maybe I am nostalgic). Even for macro there is not a big difference, especially when I consider the size of an object, relative to the frame. In this terms, the EM1II with the Pana 45mm gives the same magnification of an object. relative to frame, as the A7R5 with Sony 90mm plus SMC-1. C-AF&tracking (used to frame the photo finally) works pretty well with both combinations. EM1II plus CMC-1 would struggle, but then the object, relative to the frame, would be similar to Sony 90mm plus SMC-2 (which I do not have (yet), so I cannot compare). AI with object recognition works much better on A7R5 compared to EM1II, but in my hands, this is of limited use UW... I find, however, that sharpness and color on macro photos is (slightly) better with A7R5 (better must be so, as the macro setup is a monstrum compared to the slim EM1II/Pana 45mm setup) #4.: The difference in size and money is overrated to my feeling. Most money is spent, when buying a lot of different things, that are not used in the end, and switching from one system to the other. In addition, a fully equipped MFT setup with all lenses/domes etc. is also not cheap. Buying once and using for a long time the right stuff is the most "economical" () solution. When really short in budget, better not go for a system camera, but go for compact (both price and size advantage for compact). Differerence in size depends on the setup (see below, #5 "lens choice")... #5.: Lens choice (and size difference): (i) For the "normal range" (e.g. fishportraits), I was using the Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 behind 170mm domeport. With FF, I use the Sony 20-70mm behind the same domeport. Almost no difference in size, but the 20mm at the wide end is a sunstantial gain (I find IQ slightly better with the FF). Advantage for A7R5 here... (ii) Ultra-WA: EM1II with adapted Canon 8-15mm is practically same size as A7R5 with adapted Canon 8-15mm (both with 140mm domeport). With MFT this was outstanding IQ and zoom range, with FF no zoomrange, just 15mm (180° diagonal) and IQ is just good. Same size, but advantage for EM1II... (iii) Macro: EM1II with Pana 45mm (or Zuiko 60mm) makes a slim and smart setup. A7R5 with Sony 90mm plus SMC-1 is the biggest setup I ever used. IQ is, however, better with FF (I find well exposed photos "crisper" (sharper, more contrast and colors better (but just subjective feeling, did not make objective measurements). Lens choice is no comparison: with the MFT system one has the choice between 30mm, 45mm and 60mm dedicated macro lenses, all working perfect. Now even a dedicated 90mm macro with native 2:1 magnification is available. For Sony FF the dedicated 90mm is excellent, but that is it (A 50mm, but very slow focusing, 50mm is available; I read here that people even have to use adapted 60mm APS-C lenses for macro) Advantage for size and lens choice goes clearly to EM1II, but advantage for IQ to A7R5... (iv) WA: EM1II with adapted Canon 8-15mm was everything I ever wanted (great zoom range and outstanding IQ). The A7R5 WA is more problematic. At present, I use Sony 28-60mm with WACP-C. IQ is very good. The designation "C" in WACP-C stands for "compact", this seems a little understatement to me, it is a hughe piece of equipment to lug around. Also the setup is quite big. With EM1II the Canon 8-15mm does both Ultra-WA and WA. With A7R5 I need both Canon 8-15, plus WACP-C. Clear advantage for MFT here... At present, I would not exchange my Sony FF system against a MFT system. The FF system is, however, not just more expensive and heavier, but excels in any other aspect. There is light and shadow, as always, and it remains a very personal choice... Wolfgang- Backscatter myths
If this is just two particles more (or less), I will be very happy... But seriously now, I think the theories presented here are very important and explain a lot... 👍 In addition to these theories and also contributing to the undoubtetly (?) positive effect of pulling strobes back on backscatter, I believe that pulling the strobes "back", e.g. so that the front of the strobes is in line with the handles (maybe even behind the handles), uses the camera housing (and also the backside of the domeport) as some kind of "shade" that creates a shadow (with repect to flashlight) just in front of the domeport, minimizing backscatter from a very sensitive space... Wolfgang- Options for CFWA on m4/3?
Hi Turandot, It is operated by the Nauticam zoomgear for this lens: https://www.nauticam.com/products/o825-z-zoom-gear-for-olympus-m-zuiko-digital-ed-8-25mm-f4-pro She has the N120 version of the DP170, without any built-in extension. Then comes the 34.7mm N85 to N120 adapter plus 60mm of N120 extension (she uses 25mm + 35mm). The lens extends, but does not touch the domeport... Wolfgang- RIP Martin Edge
https://scubaboard.com/community/threads/martin-edge-the-underwater-photographer.647106/- How do you select the color temperature of your strobe(s)?
I photograph in RAW and therefore I can shift the color temperature of the water to any value I want in post at high quality. I set the WB on the camera to "Auto" or to a preset value (e.g. color temperature of the flash), but this is just for viewing immediately in the viewfinder, or as a first suggestion after import in LRc. WB during making the photos is not very important for the way I make photos (with video this is, of course, a different story)... The trick with different color temperature(s) of the flash is that the temperature of ambient light is given, but one can adjust the temperature of the artificial flashlight with filters: hence the ratio in temperature of ambient/artificial can be adjusted by choosing different filters... => As some suggest above this ratio can be also adjusted by selectively adjusting temperature using masks (this is how I do it at present, by the way), but these masks are never perfect and sometimes artifacts become apparent. Wolfgang- Backscatter strobe tests and Beam width...
It would be very interesting, if you could post the screen shots and, maybe, also your analysis (I guess histograms?) There is the problem as these are screenshots from videos and we do not know how they postprocess their videos and whether they do it always the same way... Maybe one could ask at Backscatter to give you the original photos? Wolfgang- 8-15 on Sony A7
I can report only for Sony A7R5, not on earlier versions: I have the Metabones V adapter and it works o.k. (with and without 1.4x TC)... Wolfgang- NEW - Backscatter Hybrid Flash
Would be nice to have more cycles, but for comparison: Eneloop AA white have 2100 cycles Eneloop AA black have 500 cycles- How powerful strobes do you really need for wide angle? Weight and size considerations (or my GAS journey)
For me, this photo answers the question in the title of the tread "...How powerful strobes do you really need for wide angle? Weight and size considerations (or my GAS journey)..." => I would says for this type of WA photo the flashes could not be powerful enough (I struggle a lot with lightening similar fish shools with strobes)... And what is the problem with powerful strobes (except size and weight, but what kind of FF user cares about few 100 grams?)? And when max. power is too much, just turn them down a little, were is the problem (the opposite with small strobes is, unfortunately, not possible)...- FS: Sea&Sea YS-D2
I have here one used, but still working very well, Sea&Sea YS-D2 with ball mount (old Chinese version). It comes with two set of diffusers (2*100° and 2*120°) plus alternative mount option (can be exchanged against the ball mount). Asking 220 Euro, including shipping within EU (other destinations possible upon request and additional shipping charges)...- How powerful strobes do you really need for wide angle? Weight and size considerations (or my GAS journey)
The comparison was made without, but also with diffusers (regarding YS-D2 and Z330). The problem is, that the images were taken in air and not in the water. Water will scatter the light and also the beam angles will be different... I never have seen such a weird intensity pattern with YS-D2 or Z330, as shown in the Retra "study", when I have used them without diffusers. If the strobes would perform like shown in the "study" UW, they would not be usable without diffusers.. Wolfgang- How powerful strobes do you really need for wide angle? Weight and size considerations (or my GAS journey)
In addition to several other filters, Backscatter offers also blue filters for cooling down the temperature of their HF-1 strobes. Is this the diffuser/dome you would take? Wolfgang- How powerful strobes do you really need for wide angle? Weight and size considerations (or my GAS journey)
Interesting link. Since the comparison is produced by Retra, there are, of course, conflicts of interest and I would not call this a "study" (as they do), but more an "advertising brochure" (same applies to the "review" of the new HF-1 strobes by Jim Decker from Backscatter 🙂 ).... Nevertheless, the light distribution of YS-D2 and Z330 without diffusers looks terrible, in the case with diffusers it looks much better ... => In they case they would be able to reproduce these patterns in water (these are UW strobes!), this would be really a strong argument and a step towards a real "study".... => Of course the reports/comparisons from users like you or Alex Mustard is a different story. These are people that have used different strobes for long and report from their own experience with them. I highly appreciate such information... Wolfgang - Mid-range macro recs for Sony FFs?
Important Information
Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.