Ray Flash ringflash

[David Kilpatrick]

Graham Best asked this in dPreview:

well, sort of. I saw this product showcased in one of my photo magazines recently:

http://www.expodisc.com/... ...&productname=Ray_Flash:_The_Ring_Flash_Adapter

And received this answer from Expdodisc:

We have been able to test Ray Flash model RAC170-2 with the Sony HVL-56AM in combination with the A100, A200, A350, and A700. We found that these flash/camera combinations are compatible with model RAC170-2.

He then commented:

I'm interested in macro applications and most of the example pix seem to illustrate portrait shots. At $300, it seems a bit steep for what I imagine are a bundle of fiber optic glass strands and a bit of plastic, but if it does the job I'd be satisfied.

I'll make further inquires in the lighting forum, but was wondering if anyone here has experience with this product?

---------------------------------------

OK, I can't answer in dPreview but here goes -

I tested the first prototype of this Czech-made device for the Expodisc agents in the UK, who were importing it. I was responsible for telling them it could be used on the 56/5600 (at that time, they said it was not compatible). It is a tight fit and damage could be done to the head; the slight taper of the Sony/Minolta head tends to allow the clamp-tightened unit to work its way off, like a violin tuning peg coming loose.

It does not use fibre optics and for $300 you get a totally hollow reflective-lined channel with a front diffuser. The new version moulds the diffuser to pipe more light from the top. The original gave very uneven illumination round the ring, leading to a directional quality to the light.

The unit is unsuited to macro flash. When used at macro distances, even with the 100mm, the light does not fall efficiently on the subject and wide apertures are needed. With a 50mm macro at 1:1 almost all the light misses the subject. It's OK with the 200mm f/4 macro, or a tele zoom lens for close-ups at 1m or so. For any normal portait or 3/4 distance, the aperture you end up with is very restricted. You have to set ISO 400 or faster, and will still be working at f5.6. It is unusable for full length fashion work (which is why they don't show it) because the light loss is such that you need f2.8.

Overall, the light from this heavy and cumbersome device lacks the quality of a true ringflash. They now claim it gives a 'shadow-wrap' effect instead of a 'shadowless' effect - dead right! The shadows can look dirty, and the smooth luminous quality we associate with true ringflash is just not present. Also, with the 5600/56, the weight of the head tends to force the gun into macro tilt position, and would I am sure eventually wear out the catch which keeps the head aiming straight forward (you need to press the button to shift the head to downward-angled macro/close position, but this unit forces it down against the stop slightly all the time). So you need to support the base of the unit at all times.

It is not as elegant and useful a solution as the old Rima-Blitz which used to sell for $30. This required you to detach the flash from the camera or use a 90 degree angled hot shoe adaptor (a bit like an FS-1100 with the shoe now on the front face). With the flash head aiming down and near the lens front, the Rima-Blitz had similar mirrored inner surfaces to channel the flash to two macro light windows, one either side of the lens and very close to it. This provided great true macro close-up illumination (not ringflash). No doubt a ringflash variation could be devised. The Alpha system has wireless flash or cables and there is nothing to stop you making a much more efficient 'donut' reflective attachment for a 56/42/36/58 or whatever, and using the flash unit off-camera to position it.

I published a test of the original Ray-Flash model (the name has changed) and while I was not damning, I pointed out the limitations and impracticalities of the device, and that is was really only suited to face/torso portraits and not to anything bigger or to macro work.

David

[plevyadophy]

Graham Best asked this in dPreview:

well, sort of. I saw this product showcased in one of my photo magazines recently:

http://www.expodisc.com/... ...&productname=Ray_Flash:_The_Ring_Flash_Adapter

And received this answer from Expdodisc:

We have been able to test Ray Flash model RAC170-2 with the Sony HVL-56AM in combination with the A100, A200, A350, and A700. We found that these flash/camera combinations are compatible with model RAC170-2.

He then commented:

I'm interested in macro applications and most of the example pix seem to illustrate portrait shots. At $300, it seems a bit steep for what I imagine are a bundle of fiber optic glass strands and a bit of plastic, but if it does the job I'd be satisfied.

I'll make further inquires in the lighting forum, but was wondering if anyone here has experience with this product?

---------------------------------------

OK, I can't answer in dPreview but here goes -

I tested the first prototype of this Czech-made device for the Expodisc agents in the UK, who were importing it. I was responsible for telling them it could be used on the 56/5600 (at that time, they said it was not compatible). It is a tight fit and damage could be done to the head; the slight taper of the Sony/Minolta head tends to allow the clamp-tightened unit to work its way off, like a violin tuning peg coming loose.

[PARAGRAPH SNIPPED FOR BREVITY]

The unit is unsuited to macro flash. When used at macro distances, even with the 100mm, the light does not fall efficiently on the subject and wide apertures are needed. With a 50mm macro at 1:1 almost all the light misses the subject. It's OK with the 200mm f/4 macro, or a tele zoom lens for close-ups at 1m or so. For any normal portait or 3/4 distance, the aperture you end up with is very restricted. You have to set ISO 400 or faster, and will still be working at f5.6. It is unusable for full length fashion work (which is why they don't show it) because the light loss is such that you need f2.8.

Overall, the light from this heavy and cumbersome device lacks the quality of a true ringflash. They now claim it gives a 'shadow-wrap' effect instead of a 'shadowless' effect - dead right! The shadows can look dirty, and the smooth luminous quality we associate with true ringflash is just not present. Also, with the 5600/56, the weight of the head tends to force the gun into macro tilt position, and would I am sure eventually wear out the catch which keeps the head aiming straight forward (you need to press the button to shift the head to downward-angled macro/close position, but this unit forces it down against the stop slightly all the time). So you need to support the base of the unit at all times.

[PARAGRAPH SNIPPED FOR BREVITY]

I published a test of the original Ray-Flash model (the name has changed) and while I was not damning, I pointed out the limitations and impracticalities of the device, and that is was really only suited to face/torso portraits and not to anything bigger or to macro work.

David

Firstly, I would like to add my tuppence worth to issue of fit/compatibility with the Alpha system. These were my findings here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readf ... efresh=772

Secondly, I would like to discuss (and ask question in relation to) your comments above.

I am intrigued by your comments regarding light loss. The Ringflash website seems to suggest a lot less light loss than you have pointed to. Could it be that you and they are using different distances from which to shoot?

I also note with interest your comments in respect of use of this device for full length shots. For Mark Cleghorn, who is a big fan of the product, and whom I have seen demonstrate the thing, doesn't seem to have many (well, I haven't seen any) shots taken with this device that are full length; and as you rightly point out there aren't any in any of the publicity materials. So there seems to be something in what you say in that regard.

I am very surprised about your comments regarding the weight of the device and the resulting damage this may cause to an Alpha flashgun. Are you referring to the new lighter MkII model? I have held that thing and it seems extremely light, especially when compared to the original version.

Finally, what is your preliminary view on the alternative on-camera flash "ringflash" adaptor, the Orbish Ringflash?: http://www.orbisflash.com/

Thanks in advance.

[David Kilpatrick]

My test was of the first model, and I commented on the weight, so they may have taken steps to reduce it. But with the 5600, it was necessary to put a wedge under the head to stop the flash being angled slightly down by forcing the head down. They also appear to have improved illumination. I know Mark Cleghorn very well, personally, and he is absolutely dedicated to one thing - money! Mark, though a Fellow of the MPA, is not involved in our magazine or seminars because he won't write anything unless he can promote his own or sponsors products heavily. He has now set up an equipment dealership, and though Mark is/was a superb photographer, he is now in effect an advertising medium and a dealership. And he admits that quite freely. He's intent on becoming very wealthy and building a permanent business and he won't 'give anything anyway' without getting plenty back!

Pix of the very first version of the Czech-made ringflash:

The poor centering with the 5600, and the flash adaptor forcing the head to tilt down.

Side view of the tilt.

A small wedge placed between the flash head and body corrects the weight droop.

The Canon version fits the 5600 head pretty neatly.

The Orbis looks like a slightly tighter ring, which would work better for macro, and it makes a much cleaner looking shadow. First impressions are that it will be a better product.

Also, remember that the prototype of the Ray-Flash was marketed for £250+ in the UK when I reviewed it.

David

[Javelin]

Is this fibre optic between the ring and the flash head? or is it just a shiney box inside?

[David Kilpatrick]

Shiney box with a diffuser as well at the end of the tube. Non-total internal reflection!

David