Ring light

[Dr PR]

Note: This is not a product endorsement, and I have no connection to anyone selling this product. I just got one and have no idea how long it will last.

 

I do a fair amount of macro photography and close up photography. Lighting is always a problem. I have been using everything from sunlight coming in the window to various desk lamps and such. Each required a different white balance and low light intensity and harsh shadows were always a problem.

 

I have seen several "professional" (synonym = high price) units but never wanted to spend hundreds of dollars on one. I recently found a relatively low cost unit at a local camera store and decided to give it a try. It is a Godox Ring 72 and it cost US$75.00.

 

 

The "72" refers to 72 white LEDs in the assembly. It runs on four AA cells. They also offer a rechargeable lithium battery which I do not have.

 

There are three parts to the unit. The ring light is connected to the controller with a coiled cord. A metal adapter ring screws into the filter threads on the front of the lens.

 

 

The unit comes with eight adapter rings for 49, 52, 55, 58, 62, 67, 72 and 77mm filter threads. After the adapter ring is attached to the lens the ring light just slips in place over the ring. The controller has a "cold shoe" that fits into the camera's flash unit "hot shoe" - but the ring light adapter has no electrical connection to the camera. The controller does not have to be attached to the camera, but it is very convenient to have it right in front of you.

 

One interesting feature is that the light is divided into two banks (left and right) of 36 LEDs each. Each side can be turned on/off independently. Also, each side has a dimmer in 10 increments so you can create shadows and control light intensity. I haven't experimented with this yet, and I can see from the photos below that this may be a useful way to create shadows in closeup pictures.

 

Here is a sample photo. This is a photo stacked image from eleven shots. The first thing I noticed is the light is very bright, so I was shooting at f/40 and 1/16 second with ISO 640! In the past I have been using something like f/8 and 1/30 second at ISO 640.

 

 

I always had problems with Photoshop photo stacking when I used the wider apertures (shorter focal distances). The program had trouble determining where the edges of things like ropes were, and left a blur on either side where it chose the wrong out of focus photo. This required a LOT of editing to correct! The photo above had no editing! If you look very closely you might see a couple of places with background blur along the ropes, but if I hadn't mentioned it I'll bet you would never notice. All in all, this is a much clearer image than any I have gotten before with photo stacking. Also, you can clearly see the dust accumulation over the past few weeks when I have been working on sails and a lot of non-modelling projects!

 

This next photo is even better!

 

 

This is just three images photo stacked, with no further editing. In the past I would have used at least eight shots for this picture. It was shot at f/36 and 1 second and ISO 640. In fact, the middle photo that was focused on the bell has no noticeable blurring near or far unless you blow up the image, and then it is only slightly out of focus at the bulwark caps. With the bright light and very small apertures the depth of field in each image is about as great as the width of the model.

 

Here is another extreme photo stacking example, using nine photos.

 

 

The over all depth of the model is about 27 1/2 inches (about 700 mm). In the past I used 12 photos and there were a number of blurry places. The picture also shows that the jib boom is a bit misaligned to the starboard side (left in the photo). Shortly after rigging the bowsprit and bib boom I accidentally caught my shirtsleeve on the bowsprit and broke the freshly rigged port stay! Looks like when I re-rigged it I didn't pull it tight enough to pull the jib boom back in line.

 

This photo does show one shortcoming of the ring light. All surfaces perpendicular to the line of sight have a lot of glare where the light is reflected back. Another problem is the lack of control of the light angle to create shadows. Maybe adjusting the relative brightness of the two banks of lights can be used to create some shadow effects - for further experimentation.

 

This thing is new, and I have no idea how long it will last. But it was relatively inexpensive and worth trying. It is much brighter than the lights I have been using so it does allow better depth of field in the pictures.

 

The light output is said to be 8 Watts and 5600 Kelvin (daylight color). It weighs 245 grams without batteries.

 

Here is one more picture made from five photo stacked images shot at f/36, 1/16 second and ISO 640. Notice the very soft blurred shadows on the background. This is a lot less distracting than harsh shadows from a single distant point light.

 

Edited April 2 by Dr PR

[allanyed]

Thanks for sharing this Phil.   Great model and great photos!!!  I did a quick search and $75 seems to be spot on.   Includes shipping with Amazon Prime so I may take the plunge.  https://www.amazon.com/Speedlite-Adapter-Pentax-Olympus-Cameras/dp/B09685NGWJ

Allan

[Dr PR]

Allan,

 

There are a few reviews on line and most seem to like this product. But they agree that it will run down the AA cells pretty quickly. That isn't surprising - it really is pretty bright. I usually don't leave the lights on all the time anyway when I am setting up for pictures. But spare AA cells would be a good idea, especially it you are in the field!

 

Some reviews recommend the lithium battery (US$49.00) and say it lasts much longer.

 

As with any other new toy I will be experimenting with this. You can always take the light off the camera and hold it to the side to get shadow effects.

[glbarlow]

I’ve never seen a Nikon lens with f/40, interesting. 
 

I too rejected ring lights in my photography due to limited use and high price. This seems like a nice price effective choice. Thanks for sharing. 

[VTHokiEE]

13 minutes ago, glbarlow said:

I’ve never seen a Nikon lens with f/40, interesting. 

The minimum aperture for Nikon macro lenses is typically f/32, but as you focus down to 1:1 the effective aperture is smaller. 

[Dr PR]

I was using the Nikon AF-S Micro Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8 G ED macro lens. The highest f stop in the focus distance window is f/32, but the lens runs out beyond this mark quite a bit. The camera (Nikon D5600) records the f stop as f/40 when I run it out. As VTHoikEE says the actual f stop is the result of a combination of things. I was focusing in to almost the minimum focus distance for the lens (12"/65mm from the focal plane, or about 5 1/2"/140 mm in front of the lens).

 

 

 

The D5600 camera is a "DX" series body with a crop frame sensor 75% the size of a full frame sensor (35mm film frame size) and the lens is a full-frame ("FX" series) lens.

 

Note: Not all crop frame sensors are 75% as large as a full frame sensor. This varies with manufacturer.

 

 

 

 

 

The result is a narrower view angle and an effective focal length of 1.5 x  105 = 157.5 mm. This screws with all of the lens characteristics calculations and is probably why the camera reports it as f/40 in this photo. I have seen f/44 in some pictures shot close up at 1:1 image size on the sensor and that is about 1.5 x 32 = 48.

 

 

 

****

 

Using the full frame lens on the crop frame body has several advantages. First the effective focal length is 1.5 times the full frame focal length (an advantage with telephoto lenses, but a disadvantage with wide angle lenses). The light intensity focused on the focal plane is the same in both the FX and DX cameras so there is no light loss as with a doubler between the lens and camera (and no loss of image resolution).

 

The lens is smaller, lighter weight and less expensive than an equal focal length full frame lens. For example, I have a Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 FX zoom lens that cost $1200 new a few years ago. On the DX camera body it is a 300-750mm focal length lens. A Nikon 800mm f/5.6 FX lens cost $16,300 at that time!

 

 

But perhaps the greatest advantage is that you get overall sharper photos. With any lens the distortion increases from the center of the image to the corners. The FX lenses cast a 22mm diameter image, with blur and chromatic aberration greatest at the greatest radius (the corners of the image). If you look at the resolution graph for the 105mm macro lens the worst distortion is out beyond 16mm (left, the vertical axis is resolution with 1 being perfect, and the horizontal axis is mm from the center of the image).

 

But the DX sensor maximum radius is 14mm. So the crop frame sensor crops out the most distorted parts of the image. The result is that the crop frame sensor camera with a full frame lens produces sharper overall images than the full frame camera with a full frame lens.

Edited April 3 by Dr PR