Using on-board flash for macro - a simple accessory.

puzzledpaul · Post by **puzzledpaul** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:36 am

First of all, if this has been tried before, my apologies - I couldn't see any sign of a similar approach when I first started messing around with the idea (about a year ago) ... but haven't checked since.

At the time, I was using a a D30 + Tamron SP90 FD (+ convertor) and didn't have access to flash other than the on-board one.

I then bought 2 bits of used kit - a 10D (came with 550ex) and a 200mm macro FD lens ... so ended up 'shelving' the prototypes of this I'd made.

However, yesterday I bought a used 100mm Canon macro (non-usm) from a local shop and thought I'd dig out my bits of origami and try same with the new acquisition.

Since the arrangement seems to have possibilities, I decided to write this - just in case anyone else might be interested.

As I'm using the only digicam currently available to take the pix, I've shown the basic setup using a old T90 and close focus lens of similar size to the 10D + 100mm setup.

The object (diverter?) was originally made to fit the D30 + SP90 arrangement, btw.

Construction is thin card (used double-sided tape for the joints) with aluminium kitchen foil lining (crunched up then opened out) - I glued the foil to the card with a glue stick.

How you design the shape to fit your rig (if interested in trying) is upto you - if you have good origami / paper folding skills etc - then it'll be no problem

I used a 3D modelling app that let me construct a (very) simple 3D model of the camera / lens setup around which I could then 'build' the diverter.

If more details of this method (which also includes 'opening out / development' of the 3D shape > 2D drawing) are required I can post them - but I don't want to be accused of 'spamming the app.' (it's an open source / free one anyway, so no commercial aspects involved.)

A simple sample pic taken (late last night) with 100mm macro @ 1:1 (20p coin is a tad under 22 mm across) - no lenshood on lens - sufficiently deeply recessed fr. element anyway?

Upper without div.
Lower with
100iso
F16 / 1/200
Handheld
Full frame
A tad of levels / usm - otherwise untouched.

Again, I could take more sample pix - but am not going to bother at this stage - be a waste of time if no-one's interested

(in the 'early days' I also used this with bellows / other lenses, btw)

As a piece of kit / accessory, it's obviously not going to give comparable performance to what's obtainable with fancier stuff - however ...

Lightweight
Almost zero cost - someone steps on it - make another

Custom building ... and could add further 'accessories' - like barn doors for 'modelling' etc.
Non- invasive
No batteries

I'm now considering making another for the Canon 100mm, using relatively thick (but still easily worked) 'pie dish' ali sheet / foil.

That's it for now - any queries, will be happy to answer same (if I can)

pp

Carl_Constantine · Post by **Carl_Constantine** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:05 am

"Now why didn't I think of that?" That's a pretty cool setup there Paul. Shows a lot of creativity and well thought out. I'm sure it could work for those of us that don't have any kind of macro flash bracket (like those Y-mount's for dual flash or the MP-24 on Canon's, etc, etc, etc) and can probably be adapted to work with a regular flash too.

Still don't have a macro lens yet, but you have my creative juices going.

Mike B in OKlahoma · Post by **Mike B in OKlahoma** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:11 pm

By golly, it looks like it works! I'm sure you lose some light, but this looks like a fine way to get a wonderfully diffuse light on a budget.

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:23 am

Have you got a degree or doctorate in origami Paul?

Very neat and works too!

DaveW

puzzledpaul · Post by **puzzledpaul** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:24 am

<< Have you got a degree or doctorate in origami Paul? >>

:-)

Nope - I'm quite 'at home' messing around with this sort of stuff (ex-aero/boat modeller in youth + used to make 3D jigsaws in a 'previous life') - but used the comp. prog because it offers flexibility and the option to (easily) get all the true shapes (and am familiar with it)

Only relevant qualifications I've got (according to better 95%) are associated with procrastination

<< I'm sure you lose some light >>

Yep - but in view of the distances involved (and the flash GN) I originally thought it was worth a go, even if half was lost in the process.

<< Still don't have a macro lens yet ... >>
I don't know what lens you do have, Carl, but I tried this (last night) with my 28-105 (3.5-4.5) + 48mm extn tubes ... and the results were far more dramatic ... to the extent that I thought the flash in the 'without div' shot hadn't fired

Would it be worthwhile considering getting some extn tubes - as they'll not be a wasted expenditure even when you have a macro lens?

Thanks for the comments, guys - I'll try to post some more pics (with maybe different lens setups etc.)

pp

edit

28-105 (105) + 48 mm ext tubes
F16 , 1/200 , iso 100
handheld
Uncropped main pic
Main pic with div.
LH inset without div
RH inset same as LH - but after adjustment in phshop (WPoint > 20) ... just to check what was there

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:39 am

Paul

Can I ask why the two "light pipes" have different shapes yet their outlets at the side of the camera are at exactly the same level in the right hand picture?

I notice on the bottom two photo's they have obviously been altered because in the left picture the outlet on the left hand side is higher than the right, but both are same level in right hand photo as the left hand side has had a new extension put on it?

Paul, extension tubes are never a waste of money as you say you will still use them with macro lenses to get even more magnification. Also look on EBAY for a macro lens to fit your camera, you don't always need to buy new and most amateurs look after their equipment anyway so you can often pick up a mint example.

"Puzzled DaveW"

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:13 am

puzzledpaul · Post by **puzzledpaul** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:50 am

Dave - I'll respond in reverse order - if that's ok.

Yes, I'm using Canon gear (10D now) - but I think some misunderstanding has crept in somewhere, as I bought a used 100mm macro lens last week - from a local shop ... and mentioned this in my first post.

I think this (together with my comments re extn tubes) came about because I'd suggested the possible purchase of the latter for Carl (whilst 'saving up'?) for a macro lens.

Almost all my current 'kit' was bought used off Ebay, btw - so I'm fairly familiar with its use - including entering mis-spelt text to 'pick up' those items whose owners wonder why there's been no interest in their 'super-dooper' wonderful bit of cherished eqt

Thanks for the thought, consideration and effort, tho' ...

Re the 'diverter'

The 2 'light pipes' are the same - or rather, one's a mirror / 'opposite-handed' version of the other. When modelling this sort of thing with the s/w I use, it's possible to define a 'mirror plane' (or other mirror functions), which interactively lets you create shapes on one side, whilst the software does the other side 'for free' - as it were.

There's some minor differences, because I've been pulling it about a little (mainly to get it to fit around the recently-acquired lens, which it wasn't designed for) - but there's no intended differences - any major apparent differences are likely to be associated with how the pix were taken.

Rather than adding an extension (as you suggest), what I have done over the last few days of messing around is to shorten the main (single) tube that fits over the flash, thereby allowing the system a better chance to work with lens (systems) that are shorter than the 100mm macro.

To do this properly would probably require (imo) for this single tube to be telescopic - which would also cater for when extn tubes are added to the 100mm macro.

This mod is one of several I intend to experiment with over the 'winter' season

pp

DaveW · Post by **DaveW** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 4:31 am

Thanks for the clarification Paul. I was a little puzzled about you saying you had a macro lens in your first post but did not realise:-

Still don't have a macro lens yet ...

In your later one referred to Carl. My comments to you then transfer to Carl. Have a look on EBAY you may pick up a cheap but mint one.

Paul, you could always bellows pleat the tube to make it extendable. They can be simply made parallel, not tapered as shown in this example, but the same principles apply:-

http://www.cyberbeach.net/~dbardell/bellows.html

DaveW

puzzledpaul · Post by **puzzledpaul** » Sun Nov 19, 2006 9:27 am

<< could always bellows pleat the tube to make it extendable >>

Certainly one way, but unlikely to be one I'm likely to take further (atm) for this job for the following reasons -

Am trying to keep light transmission losses to a minimum, because there's a (very) limited source available - I've not done any 'flash thro' bellows' tests

, but I suspect it'd be more 'lossy' than the existing arrangement, or a (correctly) facetted F117 stealth jet type approach.

Some sort of frame / device for keeping the req'd bellows extn would ideally be reqd - whereas there'd probably be sufficient friction between a couple of 'nested' cdbd tubes to do the job and if not, less inherant 'springiness' for such a 'spreader' to have to overcome.

However it's looked at and irrespective of skill level, making some sort of bellows rig is more difficult to make than the tube arrangement (I'm certainly no bellows expert, but I have made such in the past for non- photographic purposes) - and I thought that other ppl (wanting to have a go) would be more likely to do so if the device was kept as simple as possible - as well as making life easier for myself

I would certainly be interested to see how other ppl go about the task and what results they get - but it also won't matter if no-one else bothers (other than me) as it was conceived for a particular purpose, which may (or not) fit other ppls requirements

Thx for the interest, btw.

<< on EBAY you may pick up a cheap but mint one. >>

On a light hearted note - this doesn't seem to apply *quite* so readily when talking about main 'name' macro lenses imo - one or the other, but very rarely both, in my experience - esp if not looking outside the UK.

No doubt the mkplace will be awash with suchlike now ... 180/F3.5's for £125 :-) etc etc ... but looking this side of xmas is prob a mistake anyway

I just watched a non-usm version (like mine) go for £54 (+postage) more than what I paid at a local shop (2.5 ml bike ride away), dealing with ppl I know (and can haggle with) + 12 warranty, so sometimes it's worth having a quick shufties around - imo

pp

puzzledpaul · Post by **puzzledpaul** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:49 pm

Was lucky enough to find this in the garden a couple of days ago and used same for a few test shots.

10D + 100mm macro + 36 extn.
100 iso
F11, 1/200
Handheld with diverter.
Uncropped

Certainly isn't a partic. exciting pic and I'm more used to using a tripod (with my 200mm) - but at least the subject matter is closer to what I'd 'normally' be taking.

Since I can see several areas for improvement, am going to start the next mod, rather than continue modifying this'un - even tho' I'll still use it if the opportunity arises.

Above individual crossed my path (very rapidly) so tried the setup again.

Specs as last pic except
Iso 200, F9.5 + levels / usm.

Poor photo is down to me, of course - no excuses.

(I've also recently realised that I've previously overlooked a very useful 'anchor / attachment / location point' which is provided for 'free' with many cameras - the flash hot shoe. Ideal for slipping a cardboard 'tag' into - imo - provided you avoid triggering any 'external flash present' interlock/sensor system that exists on the hotshoe

)

pp