That's right. I initially thought of just buying a Haiku (complete light) and a Mule head to swap around but decided against it. I gather that I would find more joy just having complete units that are ready to use so I can have both with me for different applications. So I ended up with a Haiku XM-L for general use, Haiku high CRI for my outdoors use, and the Mule high CRI for my close-up photography as well as room lighter when at home. Cost me a bomb but I never regretted my decision. They are real pleasurable to have and to use.
-
You must be a Supporting Member to participate in the Candle Power Forums Marketplace.
You can become a Supporting Member.
McGizmo for Photography
- Thread starter gapey
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
gapey
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 19
I put my McGizmo on a Gorillapod to show off the tripod clip. It worked pretty well. I also took a pic to show how wide the light is as I don't think I've seen any photos of that and was surprised by how wide it is. The photo below was only 3" from the wall and produce about an 11" in diameter octogonal beam.
EV_007
Enlightened
Hey gapey, you are using the top fo the line in lights here for both quality and High CRI factor. As Don mentioned, shooting in RAW mode and adjust white balance from any other high quality LED would do the trick.
Strobes would be my first choice, but for a lower profile light source, flashlights work great.
I like the LitePanels band of "photography" LED lights. They offer a floody beam with filters that can run on standard AA batteries, but can cost a pretty penny.
Great pics on your flickr BTW fellow CPFr.
Strobes would be my first choice, but for a lower profile light source, flashlights work great.
I like the LitePanels band of "photography" LED lights. They offer a floody beam with filters that can run on standard AA batteries, but can cost a pretty penny.
Great pics on your flickr BTW fellow CPFr.
fyrstormer
Banned
Cool pics. Just need to modify it to shoot a laser and Photoshop it into a scene of New York City... :devil:
PoliceScannerMan
Flashaholic
Testing camera on new iPhone 4s.
gapey
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 19
Got some new black velvet material to use as a background for studio shots. Had to take a a test pic of the new Mule.
PoliceScannerMan
Flashaholic
Wow! nice pic!
Nice shots gapey. Strobe lighting shows Ti at it's best IMO, you can really show the highlights which makes Ti. Double reflections of glass are not a favourite of mine personally; I have had reasonable success with standard high gloss acrylic. It is refered to as 'high impact' here but maybe known by another name in the USA. Nice stuff but does scratch easily so has a usage limit. By controlling the light fall off you can achieve a graduated gradient:
Happy New Year to all CPF'ers !
Happy New Year to all CPF'ers !
climberkid
Flashlight Enthusiast
for years thats all i have done. just drool over mcgizmo. i love high-cri even for general light use. i do nothing special with my lights, i just do everything with them. when i return from tech school i hope for a haiku to be my big purchase. /end hijack
more pictures please! and id like to see some of those food pictures you guys and gals are taking!
gapey
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 19
JAYKAY75
Newly Enlightened
great pictures there gapey, and the food looks really good too, especialle those moules
Cool Gapey! Slightly off topic but what lens did you use for the pics? I have been migrating away from Nikon back to Olympus ( Old OM1 shooter and years of Olympus Digital until just a couple years ago). My primary focus is on underwater but as time goes I know I will end up getting glass for topsides and Olympus bodies.
A lot of my photo work is of music groups in clubs where the lighting is about impossible to work with and flash really isn't a good option. I use a Nikon D700 with a Nikon 24mm f1.4, this combination is one of the best for low light photography. Typically, because of the light, everything is rendered in shades of red which, more often than not, makes for a boring picture.
Here's a photo using the Ti mule.
Don't - Live at the Kenton Club 2-17-2012-0051.jpg by Dean Fletcher - Photographer - Portland, on Flickr
I think the color is amazingly good.
Here's a photo using the Ti mule.
Don't - Live at the Kenton Club 2-17-2012-0051.jpg by Dean Fletcher - Photographer - Portland, on Flickr
I think the color is amazingly good.
fyrstormer
Banned
Well, I'd say that confirms the Mule's status as a perfect Hi-CRI photo light. Notice how the light accurately illuminates her red lipstick and her blue eyes at the same time.
kaichu dento
Flashaholic
Thanks to the Nichia 119! Not only are the colors accurate due to the emitter used, but the lighting is just as strong at the periphery as it is in the center.
Hmm... I would have thought you might be a Leica man Mr McGizmo. An M9 with a Mule would be a partnership made in heaven. Personally, I lean heavily towards a camera with a full frame sensor (Leica M9, Nikon 800, Cannon 5D) For a smaller sensor size, you might want to take a look at the new Fuji X-1 pro or X100. They are today's premier small cameras.
DTF,
Thanks for the tips and I will try to keep my eyes out. I did have a Leica for a while back in film days; got it in trade for some boat hardware and supplies. Last film camera I bought was a Contax T2 (titanium, sapphire, ceramic, Zeiss.... no expense spared). I ended up giving it to PK as a gift and sample of engineering geared towards optimal function and not price point.
First and most important consideration for me with a camera is what underwater housings are available for it and how small and convenient are they. I am by no means well read or expert on what is available out there but my perception as based on the past at least was the best glass came from Europe from folks like Leica, Leitz Zeiss and I have microscope and a number of binocs and a spotting scope from these guys. But regarding camera bodies and especially the electronics seemed to be best if from companies in Japan. I had a boat owner customer/ friend when I was in the marine industry who was an Olympus rep and I advanced along the digital learning curve through the years via demo models I purchased from him. Fortunately there were UW housing manufacturers who made housings for these cameras. When it finally came time to go for a DSLR, the best and most compact housing available at the time was from Subal and designed for a Nikon D70 so I moved over to Nikon and as time passed picked up various lenses as well as advanced through a few newer bodies and darned expensive housings. I have a D300 and have kept a few good lenses for it which I can use for shore side images but the smaller scale of the micro 4/3 Olympus and UW housings built for them are much easier to comport in the water and certainly easier on the pocket book! It would be one thing if I thought I could buy a rig that I would keep and be satisfied with for 10 years or the rest of my life (which ever comes first) but it seems that today's point and shoot cameras give better images than yesterday's top end camera. I am exaggerating but you get the point.
When I heard about the Nikon 800 I found myself considering it but then hit the brakes big time! I do or did have the right glass for it at the time but in addition to the expensive body I would have to wait and hope that one of the companies would make a housing for it and such a housing would cost probably from $2500 to $6000. And ignoring the cost (as if I could) I would also be back to a large and heavy camera rig that would impede my ability to get in place for a shot.
Below is a shot my brother took of me taking a shot of a hawksbill turtle:
I am using my current rig that is a Nauticam housing for Olympus PL3 coupled with a Panasonic 7-14 mm lens behind a 6" port. The port represents a good portion of the entire volume of the rig.
Below is a shot I took of my friend Kristen using her Subal rig with 8" port and Cannon DSLR (subject being the seahorse in the foreground which I could get much closer to because of my smaller rig):
The Fuji cameras you mention sound great and I did a little bit of searching on them but couldn't find much reference to UW housings for them. It's a bit moot anyway because I have already signed on to an Olympus micro 4/3 and related gear platform as well as hanging on to some Nikon glass and camera.
I would love to see a manufacturer approach UW photography with current technology as Nikon did back then in film with the Nikonos. There are some excellent UW point and shoot cameras out there now but there is a significant gap between them and what you can get with a mirrorless and interchangeable lens platform. :shrug:
Thanks for the tips and I will try to keep my eyes out. I did have a Leica for a while back in film days; got it in trade for some boat hardware and supplies. Last film camera I bought was a Contax T2 (titanium, sapphire, ceramic, Zeiss.... no expense spared). I ended up giving it to PK as a gift and sample of engineering geared towards optimal function and not price point.
First and most important consideration for me with a camera is what underwater housings are available for it and how small and convenient are they. I am by no means well read or expert on what is available out there but my perception as based on the past at least was the best glass came from Europe from folks like Leica, Leitz Zeiss and I have microscope and a number of binocs and a spotting scope from these guys. But regarding camera bodies and especially the electronics seemed to be best if from companies in Japan. I had a boat owner customer/ friend when I was in the marine industry who was an Olympus rep and I advanced along the digital learning curve through the years via demo models I purchased from him. Fortunately there were UW housing manufacturers who made housings for these cameras. When it finally came time to go for a DSLR, the best and most compact housing available at the time was from Subal and designed for a Nikon D70 so I moved over to Nikon and as time passed picked up various lenses as well as advanced through a few newer bodies and darned expensive housings. I have a D300 and have kept a few good lenses for it which I can use for shore side images but the smaller scale of the micro 4/3 Olympus and UW housings built for them are much easier to comport in the water and certainly easier on the pocket book! It would be one thing if I thought I could buy a rig that I would keep and be satisfied with for 10 years or the rest of my life (which ever comes first) but it seems that today's point and shoot cameras give better images than yesterday's top end camera. I am exaggerating but you get the point.
When I heard about the Nikon 800 I found myself considering it but then hit the brakes big time! I do or did have the right glass for it at the time but in addition to the expensive body I would have to wait and hope that one of the companies would make a housing for it and such a housing would cost probably from $2500 to $6000. And ignoring the cost (as if I could) I would also be back to a large and heavy camera rig that would impede my ability to get in place for a shot.
Below is a shot my brother took of me taking a shot of a hawksbill turtle:
I am using my current rig that is a Nauticam housing for Olympus PL3 coupled with a Panasonic 7-14 mm lens behind a 6" port. The port represents a good portion of the entire volume of the rig.
Below is a shot I took of my friend Kristen using her Subal rig with 8" port and Cannon DSLR (subject being the seahorse in the foreground which I could get much closer to because of my smaller rig):
The Fuji cameras you mention sound great and I did a little bit of searching on them but couldn't find much reference to UW housings for them. It's a bit moot anyway because I have already signed on to an Olympus micro 4/3 and related gear platform as well as hanging on to some Nikon glass and camera.
I would love to see a manufacturer approach UW photography with current technology as Nikon did back then in film with the Nikonos. There are some excellent UW point and shoot cameras out there now but there is a significant gap between them and what you can get with a mirrorless and interchangeable lens platform. :shrug:
Some UW prototypes up for the Nikon D800. http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/11/u...nikon-d800-and-d4-cameras-in-the-making.aspx/ Taking a look at the available UW housing, I see that indeed a housing for a large camera like the D700/800 is several thousands more than one for a point and shoot.
Of course, the main technical advantage of the D800 is the resolution. Instead of having to get close up to the subject, just crop the picture to get close. Another advantage is the FX (full frame sensor) which takes complete advantage of wide angle lenses. No point and shoot is really going to do the same job as a full-frame sensor combined with a fast 14-24mm lens. Also, when high ISO is required, the Nikon full-frame sensor cameras (D700/800) are overwhelming a better choice. However, if most of the shots are well lit, daytime, then a point and shoot should be fine. You are right about the amazing results possible with today's point and shoot camera. I've taken pictures with a Nikon point and shoot and had it blown up to 30" x 20" with perfectly acceptable results.
It's always a balance. My D700 is one of the very best for my club work but I'm always hamstrung with a huge camera and a big hulking lens around my neck. If I could do the same job with a point and shoot, I would go for that in an instant. Still, bottom line, the truth is that the camera makes little difference. It's the photographer that matters.
Of course, the main technical advantage of the D800 is the resolution. Instead of having to get close up to the subject, just crop the picture to get close. Another advantage is the FX (full frame sensor) which takes complete advantage of wide angle lenses. No point and shoot is really going to do the same job as a full-frame sensor combined with a fast 14-24mm lens. Also, when high ISO is required, the Nikon full-frame sensor cameras (D700/800) are overwhelming a better choice. However, if most of the shots are well lit, daytime, then a point and shoot should be fine. You are right about the amazing results possible with today's point and shoot camera. I've taken pictures with a Nikon point and shoot and had it blown up to 30" x 20" with perfectly acceptable results.
It's always a balance. My D700 is one of the very best for my club work but I'm always hamstrung with a huge camera and a big hulking lens around my neck. If I could do the same job with a point and shoot, I would go for that in an instant. Still, bottom line, the truth is that the camera makes little difference. It's the photographer that matters.
