You must have some pretty low powered monolights if a T45 beats them.
Chuck Norcutt
On 4/15/2011 12:14 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> and the T45 is like have a 454 under the hood of an old Nova. Cool ;-)
>
>
> No substitute for cubic inches.
>
> It is a little misleading. The T45 isn't technically rated any higher
> than a modern flash--in fact it is rated about 1/3 stop less than most
> of these GN54 or thereabouts flashes. But that's not the full story. A
> modern flash gets that rating when the flash-head is zoomed out into
> the telephoto position. The T45 is designed to cover an image area of
> a 24mm wide-angle lens (53x74 degrees) and does NOT have a zoom head.
>
> Inotherwords, where the modern flash casts a tiny narrow beam of
> bright light, this thing is blasting that light in a very wide-angle
> pattern. So this thing really is a flame-thrower.
>
> Which is a problem.
>
> I've never realized until recently that a flash can be too bright and
> too much. It's a situation where I'm shooting some event and if the
> light beam is narrow and focused on the subject, the audience isn't
> much aware of the flash. But when that flash is essentially
> bare-bulbing it across a wide swath of real-estate, that's when people
> notice.
>
> Still, I'm way impressed with it enough that I stick bids on almost
> every one that comes up for sale. One of these days somebody won't
> notice that I got one for $15.
>
> In all honesty, other than the fact it has no modeling light, I like
> it far more in studio use than my monolights. It's brighter, quicker
> recycling and has a more pleasant color balance.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|