Camera & Drone Gear Blog
Info, Reviews, Comparisons, & News
The Good, the Bad, & the Beautiful - Using Teleconverters & Extenders
The Benefits, Disadvantages, & Considerations of Using Teleconverters/Focal Length Extenders with your Lenses.
The Benefits, Disadvantages, & Considerations of Using Teleconverters/Focal Length Extenders with your Lenses
This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Enjoy!
So you wish you had an 800mm lens, but they can be a little pricey. Or, maybe you already have a 70-200mm lens and just want some extra focal length occasionally, but not frequently enough to justify the purchase of an additional lens. Depending on your photographic intentions, an extender (some call them teleconverters) might be the perfect fit.
You typically install the teleconverter on the lens first, and then attach the lens (with the teleconverter) to the camera body. The effect this has is essentially a magnification of what is showing in the center of your telephoto lens, effectively increasing your focal length. If you install a 1.4x extender you’ll see a 40% increase in focal length, and with a 2x extender you’ll see your focal length double. Different camera manufacturers have compatibility charts to show you which lenses the extenders are compatible with, you make sure you check their specifications to make sure your lens is compatible.
The Benefits
Teleconverters are a really a great option for a number of reasons. If you want to travel somewhere to photograph a subject at 800mm but only have space and weight limit for a 100-400mm lens (Canon’s EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM lens is 10 lbs & 18 inches long vs. the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM which is only 3.5 lbs & less than 8 inches long), you could add a 2x teleconverter to your 100-400 zoom to attain 800mm in a more travel-friendly package.
Another obvious benefit is the price. Using a teleconverter to get you above 600mm is going to be a fraction of the cost of buying a lens with a focal length over 600mm.
Teleconverters also open up possibilities that otherwise would not be possible. For example, if you own a Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED, you could pop on one of their teleconverters and carry around a 400-1000mm zoom lens!
Everything looks better at 1000mm! This photo of the Lighthouse in South Haven, Michigan at sunset was taken with a 2x teleconverter on a 100-500mm lens.
The Disadvantages & Considerations
Fortunately for teleconverter users, the sharpest part of a lens is typically the center, which is what extenders are magnifying. That being said, images produced by a dedicated 800mm lens are going to be sharper and cleaner than a 400mm lens with a 2x teleconverter. Considering the price difference, that should be expected! Teleconverters can magnify lens imperfections like chromatic aberration and softness, whereas an enormous 800mm lens with an equally enormous price tag is designed to be tack-sharp at its focal length.
The more noticeable disadvantages of teleconverters are all related to the fact that they reduce the amount of light the lens captures by preventing you from using the widest aperture the lens could otherwise offer. If you think about how big the glass is on an 800mm f/5.6 lens compared with the size of the glass on a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens, a loss of lens speed makes sense, because the aperture number (or f-stop) is the focal length divided by the diameter of the entrance pupil. Since a teleconverter increases the focal length without increasing the diameter of the lens glass, the aperture ratios are all higher. This means if you put a 1.4x extender on a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens, you will now have a 140-560mm f/6.3-8 lens. If you put a 2x extender on a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 lens, you’d now have a 200-800mm f/9-11 lens.
Considerations for the reduction in lens speed include:
Autofocus might be slower, limited, or unavailable, depending on the extender and lens combination
Camera shake will be more of a concern since you are using longer focal lengths and cannot use wide open apertures
A DSLR’s optical viewfinder will be noticeably darker, because you don’t have access to the widest aperture as you would without the extender
Manual focusing might be more difficult in low light whether using an optical viewfinder or the live view on a mirrorless or DSLR camera, because live view & electronic viewfinders will be noisier due to the slower lens speeds
Since most of the disadvantages of using focal length extenders/teleconverters are related to reduced light, that will be what most people should consider when deciding whether or not to use one. If you rely heavily on fast autofocus or use autofocus to track moving subjects, a teleconverter might be more difficult or impossible to use. If you are hand-holding the camera in lighting conditions other than bright daylight, ISO might have to increase enough to add noise to your photos.
If you’re able to use a sturdy tripod while shooting it will help negate some of the effects of the slower lens speeds and longer focal lengths.
Alternatives
There are alternatives to using teleconverters to zoom into far away subjects without slowing down your lens. One of those would be to use a high-megapixel APS-C camera. Since APS-C cameras have a crop factor of around 1.5 or 1.6, you could put your full-frame compatible lens on a compatible APS-C camera and get 1.5x the focal length without losing lens speed and auto focus capabilities. Of course, this would be a useless exercise if you own a 61-megapixel full frame camera and throw one of the full-frame compatible lenses on a 30-megapixel APS-C! But, if you’re comparing a 30-megapixel full frame with a 30-megapixel APS-C, it might be useful to get 1.5x longer focal length on the APS-C.
Another option would be to simply use a high megapixel camera and crop the image in post-processing. Since Canon, Nikon, Fujifilm, and Sony all make at least one model of camera body that is at least 45 megapixels, you could crop the image significantly to make it look like you used a much longer focal length, and still have enough detail to use the image for many purposes.
Hopefully that gives readers and focal-length enthusiasts a better idea of what teleconverters/extenders can do, and how they affect camera use. As mentioned at the top, if you found this article helpful and use a product link to make a purchase, I’ll make a small commission. Thanks!
Don't Let an Inadequate Tripod Do *This* to Your Photos! (Highly Detailed Rant)
An inadequate tripod can cause you problems you didn’t even know existed. This article looks at what types of tripods are available, and what you can expect at different price points.
(Why starting out with a better tripod than you think you need will save you time, money, and frustration)
When I first thought I might want to try part-time real estate photography in 2012, I had the same thought as many beginners: “I’ll put all my money into a sweet camera and lens! Oh, and I guess I should stop at Best Buy and grab a $20 tripod or something.” Ha! If only I could go back and give my younger starry-eyed self some help. =) I suppose that’s what I’m doing now for others who might be getting started in some type of photography that is new to them, whether for money, fun, or both.
This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks!
The dreaded “Single Exposure Jiggler”
Before buying a new tripod, it’s important to think about why you are buying a tripod, and what you want the tripod to do. Is it so you can take longer exposures in low light or in the daytime with a Neutral Density Filter? Are you going to be shooting multiple exposures from the same spot with varying shutter speeds in order to create High-Dynamic-Range (HDR) photos? Are you going to be compositing images in Photoshop and need multiple images to line up precisely? Do you want to capture star trails in the night sky over the course of 2 hours? Do you need to quickly move through a house and compose 30 shots for a real estate photoshoot?
Whatever your intentions may be, consider the basic function of a tripod: to consistently hold your camera still enough for the amount of time required to capture the photo(s) you want to take.
When you hold a camera with your hand and take a photo, you have to use a shutter speed fast enough for the camera sensor to capture light before your hand moves too much. The general rule for a full frame camera (with no image stabilization in the lens or camera body) is a shutter speed “number” that is at least twice as high as your focal length. If you have a focal length of 20mm, your shutter speed should be at least as fast as 1/40th of a second. If you have a focal length of 50mm, your shutter speed should be at least as fast as 1/100th of a second. This is just a general rule… if you happen to move your hands too much (or sneeze) at the time the photo is being taken, it can certainly still end up being blurry.
If your hands move too much or your tripod jiggles while your camera is capturing light, you can end up with a blurry photo.
Camera manufacturers have tried to address these shutter speed limitations with stabilization mechanisms built into both camera bodies and lenses. If your camera and/or lens has stabilization built in, you can slow the shutter speeds down a little bit and push the limits of shutter speed guidelines. But even then, shutter speeds will be a limitation in many scenarios. There is a solution to the problem of shutter speeds though, and the solution is… use a tripod!
By mounting your camera on a tripod, you can keep the camera in one place and take very looooooonnnnng exposures or take multiple exposures to your heart’s content, and they will all align perfectly for compositing in Photoshop… right?
The answer is… it depends.
Here are some considerations:
How heavy is your camera?
Is your camera DSLR or mirrorless?
How heavy is your lens?
What focal length is your lens?
Are you using the camera in a windy environment?
Are you planning on extending the center column for additional or quickly adjustable height?
What is the weight limit of the tripod?
What is the tripod made of (typically $ aluminum or $$$ carbon fiber)?
Do you need to composite multiple images?
Will you be taking a very long single exposure or compositing multiple exposures taken over a long period of time?
Is the tripod built by a company that is known for making great tripods?
When I first started part-time real estate photography in 2012 and used super cheap tripods, I had tripods that would actually “jiggle” when I took a photos, even if I was using a remote trigger. This is because the mirror mechanism in my DSLR at the time would cause vibrations, and combined with a raised center column, the little vibrations from the mirror were strong enough to “jiggle” the tripod & camera. This was especially noticeable when I upgraded from APS-C sensor DSLR camera to a full frame DSLR. This dreaded jiggle would occasionally result in a completely unusable photo! Fortunately, I was taking multiple exposures and could edit my way out of those situations, but when it happened it disrupted my workflow and wasted time. Cheap tripod jiggles can also occur if you’re using a flimsy tripod outdoors for longer exposures when it’s windy.
The Treacherous “Multiple Exposure Drooper” (aka Long Exposure Droop)
Let’s say you have a lovely clear night ahead of you, so you pack some snacks and drive 2 hours to a dark sky park. You figure out the perfect composition, and you setup your new camera with a nice sharp lens. You prepare to take 30-second exposures continuously for 2 hours to create star trails, or maybe a 60-minute single exposure in the dark sky park. So you adjust the tilt of your fancy camera & fancy lens on your (inadequate) tripod head so your composition is perfect and begin shooting. But, by the time you’re done shooting, gravity has pulled your lens down noticeably (or not-so-noticeably) from it’s original position! Bummer, now that image will either be a pain to edit or no good at all! At least you brought snacks to eat while you drive home crying. =)
“Multiple Exposure Droop” can affect your images even if you’re composite shooting with an inadequate tripod head over a short period of time, such as for real estate or architecture. You take a few natural light shots, then you walk around while taking a few flash-lit shots, and unbeknownst to you, the flash-lit shots are slightly misaligned with the natural light shots. Now you have to spend extra time messing around in Photoshop! This happens when your ball head, 3-way head or geared head falls down slightly because of gravity and/or vibrations.
When your tripod head can’t maintain a precise position for a long period of time, misaligned or blurry images can be the result when composite shooting or taking very long exposures.
When I first started I merely intended to shoot simple HDR with no compositing, so I wasn’t aware of “Multiple Exposure Droop” or “Single Exposure Jiggles.” The first tripod I owned (tripod model #1) was super cheap and flimsy, and eventually a leg lock mechanism broke, so I bought another super cheap one, which also broke. I upgraded to a better tripod (tripod model #2), though still relatively cheap (around $75 at the time). One of those legs broke, and the company sent me a replacement leg. But that tripod was flimsy and jiggly, so I upgraded to a name-brand tripod (tripod model #3) that was around $175. That tripod still jiggled with the center column up (which I used frequently for quick adjustments during real estate shoots), but by this time I was doing more compositing with flash and discovered that ball head suffered from “Multiple Exposure Droop.” So, I upgraded to a super heavy duty tripod (tripod setup #4) with a 3-way super heavy duty head (around $500 total) and assumed I was all set. I solved the issue of jiggle, but discovered that despite the tripod and head having maximum payload weights many times higher than the weight of my camera + lens, it still suffered from lens droop when setup for a long period of time! So, I sold that, and a got heavy duty carbon fiber tripod with a heavy duty geared head (tripod setup #5)… and now the camera seems to sit still. No drooping or jiggling. =)
I often think about how much time I would have saved if I had started out with my current tripod and head. I created around 34,000 finished images over the past several years in the realm of real estate & architecture, and most of them were created with inadequate tripods & heads. Since I often composite images, I think about all the time I previously used to spend aligning images that were misaligned due to the tripod head drooping, the tripod legs sliding around, or the occasional workflow interruption caused by a tripod jiggling. Photoshop’s “Auto-Align Layers” doesn’t always work perfectly. I also think about how much faster geared heads are for real estate & architecture and how much time I would have saved if I had a geared head from the beginning. While everybody has different goals and different situations, I ultimately would have saved time, money, and frustrations if I had bought a high end tripod up front, rather than discover the inadequacies of multiple tripod setups as I progressed through various models.
“I ultimately would have saved time, money, and frustrations if I had bought a high end tripod up front, rather than discover the inadequacies of multiple tripod setups as I progressed through various models.”
That being said, not everyone needs a high-priced, heavy duty tripod. If I had been content shooting HDR photos for real estate without doing any complex compositing and used a wide angle lens with an APS-C mirrorless camera, I could have easily gotten by with a sub $200 tripod.
In an effort to help others trying to figure out what types of tripods are available, I have a few categories of tripods listed below, along with what you could expect from each based on my experiences. Most of the categories reference using them for professional work, but if you’re looking at tripods for your photography hobby, the sky (and your checking account balance) is the limit! =)
The $20 Sunpak Special
This is about as cheap as it gets for something that can technically be called a tripod. It may break after moderate use, but if you are playing around with a lightweight camera for fun, you could technically buy a tripod for around $20, probably from Sunpak or Amazon Basics. Its legs will probably slide around, it will probably jiggle, and it probably won’t be able to hold a camera in precise position for an extended period of time or for multiple exposures. Maximum payloads for this category of tripod will probably be 4-6 lbs.
The $100-200 “I-Just-Broke-My-Sunpak-Now-I’m-Upgrading” Tripod
For when you’ve broken the legs on your $20 Sunpak and know some realtors who want to pay you to take HDR photos of their listings, the $100-200 tripod/head combo can be adequate for many purposes. If you’re not doing a lot of complex compositing or long nighttime exposures, you could get a decent tripod for your mirrorless camera without breaking the bank. Brands to look at would be Benro or Manfrotto. As a side note, Benro monopods with feet are great stands for 360 cameras. Tripods in this price range might have a maximum safety payloads of around 9-17 lbs. I would not use a DSLR camera on one of these because the vibrations caused by the mirror will shake these tripods a bit… but a mirrorless APS-C camera should work fine for simple exposure bracketing.
The $300-900 “I’m-A-Professional-Photographer-and-Want-High-Quality-Support” Tripod
At this point, you’re serious about photography and are willing to spend at least a few hundred bucks for a functional tripod & head that project professionalism to your clients. You don’t necessarily need the tripod head to maintain a precise position for hours, but you’d like it to be stable and durable. At this level, you have to decide if you want carbon fiber or aluminum. Carbon fiber tripods are about 20% lighter than aluminum, and the legs are more rigid, but they are more expensive than aluminum. Manfrotto currently sells its 055 3-Section Tripod (legs only, no head) as aluminum or carbon fiber. They both have a 20-pound safety payload with the same height, but the carbon fiber version weighs 4.41 lbs whereas the aluminum version weighs 5.51 lbs. The carbon fiber version is currently $320, whereas the aluminum version is $180. Carbon fiber will probably be more pleasant to use in cold environments. Benro also sells the Mach3 2 Series Carbon Fiber Tripod (TMA27C) for around $310 with a 30 lb load capacity.
With tripod setups in this category, you might be buying legs separately from the head (instead of purchasing a kit), so make sure both will meet your needs.
If you’re doing a lot of architecture and real estate, you will definitely want to consider a geared tripod head. The more times you setup your camera and level it per hour, the more time you will save during each job with a geared head! With a ball head or standard 3-way head, you have to loosen the head and adjust the camera each time, which can be an imprecise and tedious process. One thing that can happens with many cheaper non-geared heads is that the camera moves slightly from the position you want when you are locking it down. For example, if you’ve gotten your composition perfect and it’s time to tighten the ball head, the act of tightening the head can move the camera slightly, and it won’t be precisely where you want it anymore. I found this to happen even with a heavy duty 3-way head with a 26.5-pound load capacity! With a geared head, you don’t have the problem of unlocking it, setting the position, and then locking it down again and hoping it stays in place… you just make the precise adjustment you want to make, quickly, accurately, and easily. Any real estate shooter should definitely consider it! Some geared heads in this price range would be the Manfrotto 405 Geared Head, the Manfrotto 410 (Junior) Geared Head, and the Benro GD3WH Geared Head.
If you’re looking for a good ball head, you could look at a Really Right Stuff BH-55, Gitzo GH3382QD Series 3 Center Ball Head, ProMediaGear BH-1 Ball Head, or the Arca-Swiss Monoball Z1.
At the upper end of the sub $900 tripod setups, Gitzo also has the Series 1 Traveler Carbon Fiber Tripod with Center Ball Head. Gitzo is the same company as Manfrotto & Bogen, but probably represents their higher-end products vs. the Manfrotto lines.
The $1,000+ “I-Want-To-Capture-2-Hour-Exposures-At-Night-In-High-Winds-At-600mm” Tripod
OK, so the title of this category of tripods is a mild exaggeration, but it summarizes some of the reasons you’d be looking at this class of camera support. Whether you’re shooting architecture, landscapes, star trails, or the milky way, you want your tripod and head to be durable, stable, “beefy,” and precise in a variety of environments. Some of the brands that produce the $1,000+ photography tripod legs are Really Right Stuff, Gitzo's Systematic Line, and ProMediaGear. The legs are all carbon fiber, and they are designed for stability when using big lenses and heavy camera setups.
Besides the legs, the tripod head is super important. Some of the ball heads mentioned in the previous section will be great options. Some high-end geared heads to consider would be the Arca-Swiss C1 Cube (probably the best tripod head available), the Arca-Swiss d4, or the Manfrotto 400 Geared Head.
Test Your New Tripod Setup During the Return Period
Since there are so many tripod legs and heads available, it’s a great idea to test out any new tripod during the return period to make sure it will do what you want to do. Don’t simply take the shiny new tripod out of the box and say, “looks good, and it wasn’t damaged in shipping.” Remember, as I mentioned previously, I discovered after it was too late that my $500 tripod setup allowed the lens to droop down slightly over time when doing complex compositing! (I did not link to that tripod in this article so as not to lead others astray, ha!)
If you’re going to be compositing images taken over the course of 10 minutes for architecture or milky way photography, set up the camera you’re going to be using and take pictures for 10 minutes. Then, see if the first images you take at the start of 10 minutes align with the last images you took over 10 minutes in Photoshop. If they don’t line up perfectly, is it close enough that you will be happy using it?
If you are going to be using the tripod with a super telephoto lens, setup the camera with that lens and take 10-20 photos, indoors and outdoors, at slow, medium & fast shutter speeds with the stabilizer both on & off to see if the camera vibrates too much for your purposes. Zoom into 4x in your editing program to see if the photos have motion blur.
Test any cameras and lenses you have with a new tripod, doing things that you will be doing for your job or for fun. Try to discover the limits of the tripod! If you find the tripod or head have trouble doing what you need to do or you’re already pushing its limits with normal tasks, it’s best to discover the issues and decide what to do when you still have the option to return them.
If the tripod setup is vibrating too much, the culprit usually would be the tripod legs and/or center column. If the camera lens seems to lose altitude while taking lots of exposures over the course of time, the culprit is probably the tripod head.
If you push the limits of your new tripod with long focal lengths, long exposures, and windy conditions and it does a great job in a variety of situations, you’re good to go!
I hope the frustrations I’ve experienced with several tripods over the years can be helpful to someone who is just getting started. There’s a lot of options, but if you buy a little more tripod than you need up front, you won’t regret it! =)
If You're Shooting Architecture or Real Estate, Omni-Directional Lighting is Your Friend
A look at the benefits of using omni-directional globe lanterns for architecture.
- For when natural light or flash ceiling bounces won’t cut it -
See Also:
What Equipment Do I Use? Taking a Look at Lights
The Many Faces of the Godox AD200
Godox V860II Flash vs. Godox V1
( This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks!)
I’ve been photographing architecture and real estate for several years. When I first started, I shot natural light only (using no flashes or lighting). This means I set my camera on a tripod, and for each image I wanted to produce I would take multiple exposures with varying shutter speeds to capture a wide dynamic range on site. Then at home on my computer, I would merge the exposures either manually or with HDR software. This approach can be helpful in some ways, but after a while I wanted to produce higher quality images with more control over how they look. I eventually started shooting with multiple lights, typically using walls and ceilings to bounce light.
Bouncing lights off walls and ceilings is great! They are like great big reflectors that produce soft light for your architectural scene. But what do you do when you encounter a scenario with dark wood or dark paint colors everywhere? I’d arrive at a location, and as I was walking up to the door I’d think to myself, “Oh buddy, this place looks huge! I hope they have white ceilings!”
I didn’t really know the best way to approach large spaces with dark walls and ceilings initially, so I started with the traditional classic: shoot-through umbrellas (STU’s). They are fairly multi-directional, but you don’t get an even spread of light to the sides of the STU, and half the light bounces backwards away from your scene. They can also be a bit awkward if you’re trying to hand-hold them. There are some STU’s & umbrella-like softboxes that resolve the backwards loss of light by including a reflective silver backing, such as the Westcott Round Halo. I didn’t buy those because I was looking for something I could hand-hold and fit through doors easily, and something that produced a more even spread of light to all sides.
After trying out STU’s, softboxes, beauty dishes, & bounce umbrellas (all which are wonderful for many uses other than large architectural spaces), I discovered globe lanterns. I have been using them on my Godox AD600’s, and if you want to send light evenly throughout a large space, there’s nothing better! You just twist off the basic reflector, unfold the lantern, and twist it on.
In some of the flash images you might see me holding a “light on a stick,” which consists of a Wooster Sherlock Extension Pole, a Godox V1 or V860II (see my other article for more information on that), and a cold shoe flash stand adapter. Depending on whether I’m using the Godox V1 or V860II, I often use a Gary Fong Diffuser or the Godox AK-R11 Dome Diffuser. When I want to produce light in smaller spaces where a giant globe lantern wouldn’t be practical or possible, the “light on a stick” saves the day!
I wish someone had told me about omni-directional diffusers when I first started using flash! If you’re just starting out and weren’t sure how to approach architectural spaces where natural light isn’t great and ceiling bounces won’t work very well, I hope you found this information useful. I certainly would have! =)
Omni-Directional Diffusers Used in the Images Above
Canon Announces Development of the Mirrorless EOS R5
From Canon’s Press Release: “Canon U.S.A. Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced that its parent company, Canon Inc., is developing the highly anticipated Canon EOS R5 full-frame mirrorless camera. The camera will feature a newly designed CMOS sensor and new image processor, along with new state-of-the-art optical technologies the company has been able to cultivate through its long history of groundbreaking camera and digital imaging solutions development. In addition, Canon plans to release seven RF lenses and two RF lens extenders that are currently in development. These new photography tools will help to continue to strengthen the EOS R system and cement the RF mount as an industry leader.”
The Canon EOS R5, an advanced new mirrorless camera under development.
From Canon’s Press Release:
“Canon U.S.A. Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced that its parent company, Canon Inc., is developing the highly anticipated Canon EOS R5 full-frame mirrorless camera. The camera will feature a newly designed CMOS sensor and new image processor, along with new state-of-the-art optical technologies the company has been able to cultivate through its long history of groundbreaking camera and digital imaging solutions development. In addition, Canon plans to release seven RF lenses and two RF lens extenders that are currently in development. These new photography tools will help to continue to strengthen the EOS R system and cement the RF mount as an industry leader.
“Today’s announcement comes as a direct result of the tireless effort of Canon engineers who have been tasked with developing the next generation of Canon EOS R camera and RF lenses to help elevate the popular system that was announced in 2018,” said Kazuto Ogawa, president and chief operating officer, Canon U.S.A., Inc. “In developing the new camera, Canon listened to extensive user-feedback from a variety of photographers. The outcome is a camera and lenses that will delight a variety of shooters and further helps to demonstrate Canon’s commitment to full-frame mirrorless cameras and lenses.”
The EOS R System was initially developed to provide engineers with the ability to design lenses that were thought to be impossible to create previously. The wide lens mount diameter, shorter back focus, and high-speed system for transmitting data between camera and lens have resulted in an imaging system that delivers higher image quality and greater ease-of-use than ever before.
The new full-frame mirrorless camera currently under development will fully leverage the advantages of the EOS R System, helping to produce a camera that features high-speed continuous shooting and 8K video recording. Furthermore, the camera will provide photographers with more efficient workflows thanks to improved transmission functionality, operability and reliability. These enhancements, along with many others, will help to further elevate and solidify the EOS Series concept of “Speed, Comfort and High-Image-Quality.”
Canon’s EOS R5, the first of the next generation of full-frame mirrorless cameras planned for EOS R System, will include a newly developed CMOS sensor. The new sensor will enable enhanced features such as high-speed continuous shooting up to approximately 20 frames-per-second (FPS) when using the silent shutter and up to approximately 12 FPS when using the mechanical shutter – A feature professional sports and wildlife photographers will find to be extremely impactful on their ability to capture fast-moving subjects. From a video perspective, the camera’s 8K video capture capability will prepare videographers for the future of movie-making- capturing 8K footage today allows for even higher-quality 4K productions in addition to the ability to extract high-resolution still images from the video footage. The EOS R5 will be the first Canon camera equipped with IBIS (In Body Image Stabilization) and when used in conjunction with the extremely effective in-lens stabilization (IS), will allow photographers to handhold the camera in light levels not previously imagined. Additionally, the camera will also feature dual-card slots and will support the automatic transfer of image files from the device to the new image.canon cloud platform.
Alongside the EOS R5, Canon is also developing seven RF lenses and two RF lens extenders scheduled for release during 2020, including the RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM, Extender RF 1.4x and Extender RF 2x.”
How to Use an External Microphone with a GoPro Fusion or GoPro Max
Steps to using an external microphone with a 360 camera if there are no audio inputs.
(Or the Insta360 One X…or many other 360 cameras for that matter)
You just bought that shiny new GoPro Max and you want to record a realtor talking on the beach patio for an oceanside 360 video shoot, but the ocean is overpowering the realtor’s voice in the GoPro mic. Or maybe you’re trying to record a restaurant owner talking about their business on location, but the ambient noise prevents their voice from being heard clearly using the built in mics. Time to get your trusty external microph… oh wait, where does this thing plug in????
360 video cameras are unique in that they record video in all directions using 2 or more lenses, so the videos can be stitched together to create a 360 video. This means if you were to have cables coming out of the camera, they’d probably show up in the video. For this reason and whatever other reasons, your only option for recording high quality vocal audio (especially in places with lots of ambient noise) for many 360 cameras is to record with an external mic and a separate device with audio recording capabilities. This article takes a look at the steps involved with recording audio with a separate device, and then syncing it with the video taken by the 360 camera.
This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Enjoy!
Step 1) Find a device that can record audio (you probably already own one)
If you have a phone, you can probably record audio with it. Whether you have Apple’s iOS, Google’s Android, or something else relatively recent, there are multiple audio recording apps you can use on the various app stores.
Some of the audio recording apps available on Apple’s App Store.
Step 2) Get a wireless microphone system
You may already have a wireless mic system (transmitter & receiver), or you may be starting to look at options. When I recently recorded a 360 video in a bar with a host/narrator, I used the Rode Wireless Go mics, which are a great option. They are super lightweight and small enough that the narrator can just clip the transmitter/mic to their lapel, and you’re ready to roll. I have used these mics both with and without the optional Rode Lavalier Mic. In situations where you want to minimize ambient noise, I would opt for using a lavalier mic, but if you’re OK with a little ambient noise then you probably don’t need it (I recorded someone talking 20 feet from a busy road with just the basic Rode Wireless Go kit, and it allowed a little bit of the traffic noise in the background, but the person’s voice was clear). If you want to be safe, you could use the lavalier mic and you’ll still have the ability to add in ambient noise using the audio captured by the 360 camera once the audio is synced, which I’ll explain later in this article.
One thing to remember if using this system is to keep the receiver as close as possible to the transmitter/mic. Rode advertises them to work at “a line-of-sight range of up to 70m,” but if a person’s body or wall comes between the pair, the range can shorten significantly. In many cases, I will hide the Rode receiver (attached to my iPhone) in the 360 scene with the narrator where the camera can’t see it, rather than taking the phone with me and hiding around the corner of a wall. This minimizes the chance of audio intermittently cutting out.
In order to plug the receiver into my iPhone, I had to use an Apple Lightning to 3.5 mm Headphone Jack Adapter and a Rode SC7 3.5mm TRS to TRRS Patch Cable.
The Rode Wireless Go Microphone system, hooked up to an Apple iPhone.
Step 3) Start Recording
When you have your wireless mic system hooked up to your phone (or other recording device), you’re at the scene you want to shoot, and you or another narrator is ready to speak, it’s time to record! After pushing record on the 360 camera and also the smartphone, have someone clap near enough and/or loud enough to overcome other noise happening in the scene. Just a single clap will suffice… don’t applaud until your client mails you a check! =) This will give us a nice audio spike that will allow you to easily sync the audio in post-processing. To make it easier on yourself in post-processing, clap a single time before each video section, and before each take. Then you can trim out bad takes and manage your project easier in your favorite video editing app.
Step 4) Sync the audio to the video in your editing app
After you import your stitched 360 video in a video editing application like Final Cut Pro or Adobe Premiere, it’s time to sync the external mic’s audio with the 360 camera’s audio. If you add the external mic’s audio into your timeline, you can see graphically where your audio spikes are from somebody clapping before speaking:
Syncing Audio between an External Mic and a 360 Camera in Post-Processing
All you have to do is line them up, and then playback the video a couple times to make sure they are exactly aligned. You want the external mic’s audio track to be so perfectly aligned that it sounds like a single person clapping one single time. Repeat for each clip.
Once you have the audio tracks perfectly aligned, you can also decide how much audio you want from the camera to come through. For example, if you were recording audio next to the ocean, you could reduce the 360 camera’s audio track to 20% volume, rather than eliminate it completely. Or, if the narrator didn’t start talking right away, you could leave the camera’s audio at 100% and then fade it down as the narrator started speaking. As long as the audio tracks are perfectly aligned, you’ll have a lot of flexibility in regards to what the final video will sound like.
And that’s all there is to it! Hopefully that will give you a few helpful ideas about recording with a 360 camera and processing audio from external mics. Even if your scenario isn’t described here, hopefully it will give you a few ideas.
A Few 360 Camera Options
Insta360 One X2
5760 x 2880 Video, 6080 x 3040 Photos
*Note: They have an optional microphone adapter that allows for external microphone input, but you might end up with the mic in the 360 video if you attach it directly to the camera
GoPro Max
5376 x 2688 Video, 5760 x 2880 Photos
Ricoh Theta Z1
3840 x 1920 Video, 6720 x 3360 Photos
Ricoh Theta V
3840 x 1920 Video, 5376×2688 Photos
Godox V860II Flash vs. Godox V1 (A.K.A. Flashpoint Zoom Li-on X R2) Comparison
A look at the differences between the Godox V1 and the Godox V860II, with a brief look at the Godox AK-R1 Accessory Kit for Round Flash Head.
(And a brief look at the Godox AK-R1 Accessory Kit for H200R Round Head)
See Also: What Equipment Do I Use? Taking a Look at Lights
When you are deciding what speedlight to buy, it’s extremely helpful to see some of your options in action. This post takes a look at the Godox V860II (same as the Flashpoint Zoom Li-on R2 sold by Adorama) and the more recently released Godox V1 (same as the Flashpoint Zoom Li-on X R2 sold by Adorama). At the time of this writing, the Godox V1 sells for $259 (has TTL & there is no cheaper manual-only version) while the V860II TTL sells for $179, or $139 for the manual-only version (the manual version is called the V850II and the TTL version is called the V860II). So what’s the difference between the V1 and the V860II?
(Note: This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Enjoy!)
Here are some of the more important specs for comparison purposes (click on the titles at the top to see similarities & differences):
After looking at the specs for these two lights, the item that stands out most to me is full power flashes per charge. It’s fascinating that the older V860II gets 650 full-power flashes on a 2000mAh battery, and the new V1 gets 480 full-power flashes on a 2600 mAh battery. This means that the V1 uses more power per flash, which is probably related to the fact that the head is bigger, and they designed it to produce a wide and smooth light with a gradual falloff.
I wanted to compare the light output of the flashes in two ways: brightness and balance. Let’s take a look at balance first.
As you can see in the images above, the Godox V1 has a smooth & gradual light fall off, with no lines and without contrasting bright and dark areas. The Godox V860II clearly shows the pattern of the fresnel head, with a large bright circle in the middle, and then sudden and contrasting waves of uneven light. This is not important if you are using light modifiers or bouncing off walls, but if you plan on using direct flash without a softbox, umbrella, or omnidirectional dome diffuser, then this can become a consideration. It is also important to remember that if you add a light modifier like a softbox, you will be reducing the brightness of the light dramatically.
Next, let’s compare brightness.
When bouncing off a white object like these white blinds, the brightness of the Godox V860II and Godox V1 are very similar. It seems that the V860II is less than 0.3 of a stop brighter, so if you are using umbrellas, reflectors, or walls for bouncing light, you probably won’t notice much difference between the two.
It’s All About the Round Head
The difference between the Godox V1 and the Godox V860II all comes down to that round head. Besides having a smoother & more balanced light output, the round head also makes it possible to use the Godox AK-R1 Accessory Kit for Round Flash Head. It’s a magnetic ring system that makes the various accessories super quick and easy to mount or even stack. It comes with a few color filters, a grid, a snoot, a bounce card, barn doors, and an omnidirectional dome diffuser.
Having used both lights quite extensively for architectural interiors (along with a few other Godox lights), I have found the magnetic system to be very convenient and even time-saving. With the Godox V860II, if I wanted to use a grid, color filter, or go omnidirectional, I would use little velcro straps to attach things that wouldn’t sit perfectly flush or straight. I often had light leaking out the sides of color filters, then I’d fiddle around with them over and over. With the magnetic ring system on the Godox V1, the grids, filters and dome diffusers are super quick to attach and solid as a rock, with no light leak and no worries that you are going to bump them out of alignment. If you want additional filter colors, it’s easy to cut a circle from a color filter sheet, or even buy the Godox Color Effects Set for Round Flash Heads. The AK-R1 Round Head Accessory Kit also works with the AD200 H200R Round Head.
So, should you buy the Godox V1, or the cheaper Godox V860II? I think the answer is: it depends.
Buy that shiny new Godox V1 if:
you have traditional speedlight accessories and are sick of fiddling around with velcro or rubber straps
you don’t have a speedlight yet but want one with an accessory system that’s quick and easy to manage
you plan on using a lot of direct, unmodified flash
the round head accessory kit looks sweet
Save money and get the Godox V860II if:
you never use small modifiers
you only bounce off walls, umbrellas, and other reflectors
you never use direct, unmodified flash
you already have a bunch of traditional speedlight accessories and modifiers that you like
I hope this article helps clarify the main differences between these two lights. The V860II is definitely not being replaced by the V1… it is still a great cost-effective option to consider for many people looking at purchasing a new speedlight.
Below are some of the products mentioned in this article:
Accessories & Modifiers for traditional speedlights:
Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS vs. Canon 16-35 f/2.8L III - Which Lens is Sharper?
My philosophy for landscape photography (though I do love tilt shift lenses for architecture) is to get a small number of fast, sharp zoom lenses so I can cover any focal length I need without carrying a bunch of different prime lenses. That will save space in my camera bag and allow me to spend more time taking photos and less time changing lenses. The question I had was: Is the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L III able to capture sharp photos without comatic aberration, and provide fast wide-angle coverage?
This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks!
I have been using the Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS for a few years now, and it has been a reliable workhorse. Most reviewers consider it to be sharper than the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II, and it’s smaller and cheaper, so I never gave consideration to the bigger, faster, more expensive lens. The f/4 lens with image stabilization produces nice images, and I found it to be a worthwhile upgrade from the less expensive Canon 17-40mm f/4L I was using previously.
Lately, however, I have started to daydream (night dream?) about astrophotography and nighttime photography. Taking pictures of stars at night? Milky Way? Auroras? Yes please!
The problem with taking pictures at night is that it’s… at night. It’s really dark out. This means you might want a lens with a faster aperture than f/4 to minimize noise. The other potential issue with photographing the starry sky is something called “comatic aberration.” Camera lenses can suffer from varying degrees of comatic aberration, or “coma,” which causes stars to appear misshapen in your photos instead of round, especially at the edges of the frame. Lens aperture, sharpness, and the possibility of comatic aberration are all considerations when looking at lenses for night photography.
The philosophy of some photographers is to get multiple prime lenses at various focal lengths. A good prime lens can be small, fast, and sharp, but only at a single focal length (24mm, for example). With prime lenses, the manufacturer doesn’t have to make compromises to accommodate multiple focal lengths like they do with a zoom lens. The downside to prime lenses is that in order to cover multiple focal lengths, you have to carry multiple lenses.
My philosophy for landscape photography (though I do love tilt shift lenses for architecture) is to get a small number of fast, sharp zoom lenses so I can cover any focal length I need without carrying a bunch of different prime lenses. That will save space in my camera bag and allow me to spend more time taking photos and less time changing lenses. The question I had was: Is the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L III able to capture sharp photos without comatic aberration, and provide fast wide-angle coverage?
When researching Canon’s 16-35mm f/2.8L III there were multiple websites where I encountered statements like “Canon’s 16-35 f/2.8 III is the same as the f/4 version, except bigger and more expensive, so most people should just get the f/4.” I also saw other research that claimed the new f/2.8 III was sharper, but I couldn’t find image any comparisons of the two lenses for the purpose of astrophotography, so naturally, I had to check it out for myself.
First, I wanted to compare the lenses for standard daytime photography at the wide end (16mm), where most lenses reveal the most distortion. I setup a tripod and took a picture of the same trees from the same spot, with the same settings for the two lenses: Canon 5D Mark IV, 16mm, ISO 200, f/8, 1/320th shutter.
Before I continue, please realize that I am going to be zooming in over 1000% in order to notice slight differences. Both lenses can certainly produce images that are print quality, without question. I just wanted to dig out the pixels to an extreme degree to see if one lens is slightly better than the other.
First, let’s look at the daytime shots.
Here we see two 16mm shots from the two lenses. Settings: 16mm, ISO 200, f/8, 1/320th sec.
Overall, it looks like two standard, sharp daytime shots. In these images I have labeled the areas that I’ll be zooming in to (Auto Focus Point, Comparison Crop 1, and Comparison Crop 2).
Most people wouldn’t notice a difference in sharpness in the above two images.
Next, let’s zoom in to the center of the image, where I pointed both lenses at the top of a tree to autofocus.
Nothing substantial yet, still just looks like two sharp daytime photos at the center of the image. Still pretty difficult to see any difference between the two.
Next, let’s take a look at where lots of lenses tend to reveal their weaknesses… the edges. We can start with Crop area 1 on the left side of the frame.
I was surprised at how sharp the f/2.8L III lens was at the edges in crop area 1 compared to the f/4L! I wasn’t sure if there would be much difference, but the clear winner here was the f/2.8 III, hands down. Again let me reiterate that most people would not notice this if you were looking at the whole image, it’s only when we zoom in to 1300% that these differences become apparent near the edge of the frame.
Next, let’s take a look at crop area 2 on the right side of the frame.
In crop area 2 the f/2.8L III still wins but perhaps less dramatically. It’s most noticeable if you look at the needles on the right side.
Next, let’s take our lenses to a slightly more challenging environment: photographing stars at night.
First, we have the whole scene comparison shots. I added in constellations for reference, and for fun (because why not?). It’s worth noting that the f/2.8 III has an obvious advantage in that it can open up to f/2.8 and capture light twice as fast as the f/4L lens, so to keep it fair, I set both lenses to f/4 and auto focused on some of the house lights across the water.
Settings: Canon 5D Mark IV, 16mm, ISO 3200, f/4, 10 second exposures (stacked in Starry Landscape Stacker to reduce noise)
In those whole scene comparisons you wouldn’t notice any difference between lenses. So let’s zoom in to about 1000% at the center, above the constellation Serpens Caput.
I didn’t see much of a difference at the center, especially considering this is a tiny section of a 30-megapixel image. Next, let’s zoom in to the edges and see what happens. We can start near the feet of the constellation Hercules.
In the above images we can see a slight example of “coma” (comatic aberration) in the f/4 image now that we’ve zoomed in to an extreme degree near the left side of the overall image, near Hercules’ feet. Even though you wouldn’t see it when looking at the whole picture, when we look closely we can see the the stars in the f/4 lens image seem to be shaped like little paper airplanes that are leaking pixels, instead of round stars as they should be. The stars in the image produced with the f/2.8L III lens (set to f/4 to make the comparison even) are rounder and sharper. Since it is a 10 second exposure and we are zoomed in over 1000%, the star movement is slightly apparent, but I was pleased with how sharp the stars were on the f/2.8 III, and happy that it exhibited virtually no coma.
Let’s check the right side of the image near the constellation Virgo.
On the right side of the frame, near the constellation Virgo, the f/2.8L III lens is again the winner. The stars are sharp, round points that have moved slightly over the course of 10 seconds, but the f/4’s stars are slightly blurry from edge softness and shaped like little bats due to the minor comatic aberration going on.
While these slight differences are probably not noticeable to someone looking at the whole image, it is good to know that Canon clearly put a lot of effort into making the 16-35mm f/2.8L III lens optically superior to all of it’s previous 16-35mm offerings, with edge to edge sharpness and virtually no comatic aberration. This is reassuring if you are looking to make large prints of your photos, and a high quality lens with exceptional sharpness will be more able to support a higher megapixel camera in the future. In 2004, Canon’s EOS-1D Mark II was 8 megapixels, and the EOS-1D was only 4 megapixels in 2001! Camera companies in the not-so-distant past were making full-frame lenses for cameras that were either 35mm film or low-megapixel digital. But now that 20, 30, and 50 megapixel camera bodies are standard and meticulous people (like me!) are analyzing lens sharpness at 1300% zoom levels, lenses have to be able to support all those megapixels with high quality optics. What’s the point of all those megapixels if the lens isn’t sharp?
Hopefully you found this helpful in comparing a couple of Canon’s wide angle zoom offerings. I learned a little bit while making this comparison page, and that’s always a good thing. =)
Lenses Compared in this Article
The Many Faces of the Godox AD200 (AKA Flashpoint eVOLV 200)
I previously wrote a post about the different lights that I use, and that article touched on the AD200 options briefly… but I wanted to look more specifically at some of the available AD200 accessories and how they affect the spread of light from the AD200 with it’s three different heads. Documenting these tests with images will help me know which heads and modifiers are best in various situations, and hopefully it will help others as well. Maybe you won’t have to buy as many accessories as I did!
The Godox AD200 has become quite popular since it’s 2017 release. It is much brighter than a speedlight, but not much bigger. There’s many ways for your Godox AD200 to shine: It’s fresnel, bare bulb, and round heads each have accessories available for shaping light in different ways. Since purchasing a couple of AD200’s in 2017 I’ve used all three heads (you typically have to buy the round head separately) and somehow managed to accumulate copious AD200 accessories. I can’t help it… they just keep making more!
I previously wrote a post about the different lights that I use, and that article touched on the AD200 options briefly… but I wanted to look more specifically at some of the available AD200 accessories and how they affect the spread of light from the AD200 with it’s three different heads. Documenting these tests with images will help me know which heads and modifiers are best in various situations, and hopefully it will help others as well. Maybe you won’t have to buy as many accessories as I did!
This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks!
For each of these images, I used the same setup & settings: ISO 100, f/8, 1/200 shutter speed. The AD200 stays in the same spot, as does the camera. The AD200 is sitting on a Benro MACH3 Series 4 Carbon Fiber Monopod with a Benro 3-Leg Locking Base (see my note on that near the bottom) with an extension head. One thing I’ll say about this setup is if you put your AD200 on a monopod, make sure the base is tight and don’t knock it over. =)
This first gallery shows the various heads and the differing light spreads they produce, all at 1/8th power:
The second gallery shows how bright the various heads are when bouncing off a white surface from a distance of 20 inches at 1/2 power…in this case, the blinds:
Thoughts & Observations
Fresnel Head
The fresnel head light spread is rather narrow, uneven, and has undesirable light leaks coming out at extreme side angles. If you use it in an umbrella, the narrow beam at close distance isn’t going fill it evenly, and you might have light rays spraying out sideways. The only positives of the fresnel head (in my opinion) is that it is slightly brighter when bouncing off walls and/or ceilings, and it is the most compact head when packing gear into small cases. You can resolve the sideways light-leak issues if you put a speed strap around the fresnel head as if you’re going to velcro some gel to it, and then slide it up a bit so the edges of the speed strap come out past the end of the AD200.
Pros:
- Is the brightest head for the AD200
- Is the most compact head for the AD200
- Is included with the AD200 basic package
- Will work with standard speedlight modifiers
Cons:
- Has the worst light spread of the available heads for direct flash
- Light escapes out the sides at extreme angles
H200R Round Head
The H200R Round Head has a very wide and even light spread, but is not quite as bright as the Fresnel or Bulb heads. Much of the appeal of the Round Head is that there is a nice magnetic accessory kit available (which I don’t have yet, since it is an additional cost), and it will work very nicely for direct flash. But you have to keep in mind that once you start adding the magnetic modifiers the light will be diminished even more. The magnetic modifier set doesn’t have a ton of different gel colors, but you could cut some generic gel sheets into circles and attach your custom gels to the round head using one of the included magnetic rings (I haven’t tried this yet). Godox does have plans to release a round head speedlight that will also work with the round head accessory kit. The H200R head also can be used as a flashlight with its modeling light feature. There wouldn’t be an advantage compared to the other heads when using the round head to bounce light off walls or umbrellas, since it is not as bright as the fresnel or the bare bulb heads, and bouncing light negates the importance of the super even light spread. I likely will use this head for outdoor twilight or night photography because of its light spread quality and flashlight capabilities.
Pros:
- Has the most even light spread of available heads
- Can be used as a flashlight with the modeling light feature
- Is easier to pack than the bulb head
- Has a nice set of magnetic modifiers available
Cons:
- Not as bright as the bulb or fresnel heads
- Not included with the basic AD200 package
- Magnetic modifier set also has to be purchased separately
Bulb Head
The Bulb Head is what I normally use because it has a nice variety of reflectors and accessories, has a fairly even light spread if I end up using direct flash, and is brighter than the round head. It also works great with umbrellas using the AD-S6 Umbrella Reflector. One downside– it is the bulkiest head option for the AD200 when packing if you leave any of the reflectors or diffusers attached. I was pleased with how smooth and omni-directional the dome diffuser was, although it looks a little blue in color temperature (all the images above were processed with the same white balance), so keep that in mind if you are mixing that with other types of heads or modifiers. Maybe a little CTS 1/8 inside the dome would bring it closer to the other reflectors, but I haven’t tried that yet so I’m not sure.
I have two AD200’s that I use at every shoot with the bulb heads and umbrella or standard reflectors attached, mostly for wall and ceiling bounces. This is great in most scenarios, but if the walls and ceilings are stained wood or bold paint colors, I’ll use things like umbrellas, beauty dishes, and dome diffusers rather than ceiling or wall bounces. The beauty dish is useful if you need it outdoors and are concerned about wind knocking over an umbrella, or if you want to fit into smaller spaces than an umbrella.
Pros:
- Has a variety of low-cost accessories and reflectors than can be easily attached
- Light spread is pretty even regardless of which accessory is being used
- Works great with umbrellas (using the umbrella reflector)
- Is included with the basic AD200 package
Cons:
- Bulkiest head when packing into a case regardless of which reflector is attached
- The other heads are easier to gel
- Reflectors must be purchased separately, but don’t cost very much
Using the AD200 on a Monopod with a Base
Disclaimer: If done properly, it is quite stable… but I take no responsibility if you knock over your monopod or damage something. =)
There have been many times at past photoshoots where I would be in a house and think to myself, “man, a monopod with a base would be perfect for this spot here!” I would want to put light stand behind the bathtub by the window, or hide a light stand in a shower, or put one on the dining room table, but not be able to due to the footprint of the legs of my normal light stands. Finally I bought a monopod, and I must say, it is very handy. I used to use cheap camera tripods as light stands for situations like this, but a monopod can double as a hand-held light that can be extended over objects if I want some overhead lighting– i.e. a “light on a stick.” It also is easier to carry around than a full-sized light stand or tripod because the legs aren’t clunking around, and by using the extension head, I can keep the heaviest part of the light at the center of the base for stability. The feet of the monopod are also softer and bigger than tripod or light stand feet, so they are less likely to damage things. Having the feet as one solid unit is also very nice because they don’t slide around.
You could probably find cheaper monopods with bases for this use, but I got a decent one because I’ll probably also use it as an actual monopod for my DSLR as well. I put the AD200 in a pouch that attaches to the bottom section of the monopod, then run an extension head up to the top, where I have the bulb head with a reflector. The extension head is nice because the top has screw threads for attaching to light stands, tripods, or monopods, and can be rotated (without unscrewing) and tilted. This setup is less top-heavy and more stable than a speedlight on a monopod would be. My setup is the following:
Benro MACH3 Series 4 Carbon Fiber Monopod (MMA49C)
Benro 3-Leg Locking Base
Flashpoint Pouch for eVOLV 200 Pocket Flash
Flashpoint XP-200 V2 Portable 200ws Extension FlashHead
I leave it assembled and keep it in a cheap tripod bag.
Below are a few example photos where the monopod was used in places I wouldn’t have been able to hide or even place a full sized light stand:
I typically setup five lights at photoshoot locations, and use 1 to 5 lights to produce each image depending on the complexity of the shot. I certainly wouldn’t put all my lights on monopods (most of them are on normal light stands), but it has been incredibly handy to have something that works both as a small footprint, freestanding light stand and also a handheld light on a stick. Now that I’ve gotten used to it, I wish I had done it sooner!
If you’re looking for a speedlight on a stick solution that is cheap but doesn’t stand up on its own, just get a painter’s pole or broomstick, painter’s pole adapter, and a cold shoe.
The Heads & Accessories
Below are links to the heads and accessories mentioned in this post. The Godox and Flashpoint version are the same product, but if it says “Flashpoint” you would get a warranty from U.S. based Adorama Camera, and if it says Godox you would be dealing with Godox for technical issues if they arise.
Godox Wistro AD200 / Flashpoint eVOLV 200 (comes with the bulb head and fresnel head)
Godox Round Head H200R
Godox AK-R1 AD200 Round Head Accessories Kit for Godox H200R / Flashpoint eVOLV 200 Round Head Accessory Kit AK-R1
Flashpoint Bundle - H200R Round Head bundled with eVOLV 200 AK-R1 Round Head Accessory Kit
Godox AD-S2 Standard Reflector with Soft Diffuser (for bulb head)
Godox AD-S6 Portable Umbrella-type Reflector (for bulb head)
Godox AD-S3 Beauty Dish Reflector with Honeycomb Cover (for bulb head)
Godox AD-S17 Dome/Wide Angle Soft Focus Shade Diffuser (for bulb head)
Godox Extension Head for AD200 / Flashpoint Extension Head for eVOLV 200
If you want a grip for the AD200 that doubles as a mini freestanding light stand (works as a camera grip & tripod too), this looks pretty cool:
Review: Pelican Air 1607 Protector Case (with Padded Dividers)
See Also: Pelican 1400 Protector Case - A Customizable Waterproof Case for DJI Mavic Series Drones
This page contains links to products, so if you find this site useful and use a link to make a purchase, I’ll get a small commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks!
You have to give my frugalness credit. For a long time I carried multiple lights to job sites in whatever cheap cases they came with. My 600W lights came with a chubby, suitcase-sized soft case that I shoved a couple speedlights into, and my 200W lights came with cute little baby purse-sized cases. The 200W baby case is too small to leave the bare bulb attached, so I had to remove the bulb and reattach the fresnel head to fit them back in every time I used them. I kept my 200W bare bulb reflectors in my car since they don't fit in the baby case, which of course meant I was more likely to just settle for the fresnel head. If you read my post about the lighting I use, the fresnel heads of my 200W's are not nearly as soft and even for bounces, umbrellas, or direct flash as the bare bulb, but the bare bulb takes more time to setup if you're using the included case. Not only did I feel like somebody carrying too many bags at the outlet mall as I walked from my car to each job site, but I wasn't using the ideal lighting configurations available with equipment I already owned! Plus I was scared to set my cases down on snowy or wet pavement since they were basically just cloth and would soak up water. No good!
I finally decided to set my frugalness aside and figure out what rolling case to purchase. After all, it was for the sake of efficiency and excellence!
Pelican has been around for 40 years and always seems to get extremely good reviews, and I was pleased to see Pelican release a new line of cases called "Pelican Air." They say it's 40% lighter than their previous similarly sized cases, and if I'm going to be lugging it around to all my jobs that is a welcome improvement! They advertise their Air cases as being waterproof, durable, strong, and light. Pelican tests their cases submerged in 1 meter of water for 20 minutes and makes sure they can withstand being dropped and having things dropped on them.
I took a look at the Pelican Air 1535 Case initially and was trying to figure out if I could fit all my lighting in it. The 1535 Pelican Air Protector Case is notably the maximum size for airline carryon bags, and has wheels and a pull handle. Can I fit my typical lighting setup into a carryon bag? No... but I did make a mental note of that because I may get that case someday for traveling with my camera, who knows. The 1535 has 0.95 cubic feet of interior space and comes with the option of "Pick 'n' Pluck" foam (cheapest), Padded Dividers, or TrekPak dividers (most expensive).
The next case I looked at was the Pelican Air 1615. This case is notably the maximum airline checkin size for suitcases, so if you plan on taking lots of equipment in checked luggage, this beauty should be able to withstand being thrown around onto luggage carts, belts, and airplanes! It also has wheels and a pull handle. This seemed like it would be a little bigger than I needed, and the depth of dividers is probably more than I wanted. It also didn't have a high quantity of divided spaces (in the padded divider version), so fitting in smaller objects along with all my lights wouldn't be ideal. The 1615 has 2.49 cubic feet of interior space also comes with the option of "Pick 'n' Pluck" foam, Padded Dividers, and TrekPak dividers.
The last case I looked at was the Pelican Air 1607, which seems to be a newer model than the previous two. I say "seems to be newer" because as of the day I wrote this it is marked as "new" on Pelican's website and the other two are not. What immediately struck me about this case is a top level with lots of little dividers that can be lifted out to reveal the slightly wider bottom level of padded dividers – 2 levels of dividers for a total of 21 divided compartments with the default arrangement! The top level has a mesh that zips closed to hold in smaller items during travel. It also has wheels and a pull handle, which I figured would come in handy. With 2.24 cubic feet of interior space, it has more than twice the room of carryon size (like the 1535 case) but is slightly smaller than checked luggage size (like the 1615 case). It comes with "Pick 'n' Pluck" foam, or Padded Dividers, but does not offer the TrekPak divider option. Below are photos of the 1607 Air before I moved things around and loaded it up with my gear.
It turned out to be just what I needed! With some rearranging of the many included dividers I was able to fit one 600W light and two of it's lithium batteries, a 7" reflector, two 200W lights with bare bulbs and reflectors attached, and two speedlights... all in just the bottom level. In the top level I have lots of smaller items like transmitters, speedlight batteries, some umbrella adapters, chargers, and more. The many included black velcro straps are useful for securing small items to compartment walls (like speedlight feet) and dividing small items within smaller compartments. The height of both the top and bottom levels is around 4 inches, but as you can see some of my items (like the 7" diameter bowens mount reflector, which is about 5" tall) stick up above the divider walls. Since everything inside is padding or foam, you have a bit of wiggle room, so the removable top level still sits properly and the case closes without issue. There is a nice business card holder on the front, along with two spots for padlocks, and three heavy duty handles for lifting and carrying on the top, bottom, and side. There are 4 latches that snap shut to close the case securely. Overall the case feels very durable and tough, yet relatively light, and the wheels are quiet and smooth.
I have taken it to a few jobs already, and since it is currently winter here in Michigan, it's great to be able to stand it up in the snowy road without concern! I think it may have been possible to fit all my lights (two 600W's, two 200W's, and two speedlights) in the case if I really tried, but I don't really want the case to be that heavy and I usually don't need to use two 600W's. Having both 200W lights ready to go with their bare bulb & reflector attachments has been a huge benefit, and five lights is plenty for most jobs. I can set the extra 600W case on top of the Pelican 1607 and roll it in if I need it, and at least I won't look as awkward as I did when carrying a bunch of small cases. =) Reducing the number of cases also makes packing and unpacking more efficient, which is great.
For the Flashpoint XPLOR 600 / Godox AD600 users out there I took a picture of the Pelican 1607 next to the Godox/Flashpoint case, so you can get an idea of the size difference. The Pelican 1607 is only a few inches longer and is not quite twice as tall.
I couldn't find many reviews showing what kind of equipment people were fitting into this case, so hopefully this will be useful to somebody. If you find the information on this page helpful, feel free to use the amazon links on this page if you're making a purchase and I'll get a small commission. That will help keep useful reviews coming!
What Equipment Do I Use? Taking a Look at Lights
After some recent emails from other photographers asking me what flashes/strobes/lights I use, I thought to myself, "Hey, if I get questions about lights, it must be interesting enough to make a blog post!" In this review & comparison I'm going to take a look at the lights I use, how bright they are, and what their light spreads are like for direct flash use.
Note: For more AD200 info, see my newer post: The Many Faces of the Godox AD200
For more speedlight info, see my newer post, Godox V860II vs. the Godox V1
After some recent emails from other photographers asking me what flashes/strobes/lights I use, I thought to myself, "Hey, if I get questions about lights, it must be interesting enough to make a blog post!" In this review & comparison I'm going to take a look at the lights I use, how bright they are, and what their light spreads are like for direct flash use. Since the transmitters come in different versions for different brands of cameras, I'll put links to all the different versions at the bottom of the page to make them easy to find.
If you find this comparison useful and are thinking of buying, you can get me a small commission by using the links on this page. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thanks!
All the lights I currently use are made by a company called "Godox," but are rebranded under Adorama's "Flashpoint" brand. These lights are decent in quality while not being too expensive. I buy the "Flashpoint" branded flashes instead of the "Godox" branded ones because if it says "Flashpoint" it means I get a U.S. warranty. Since I live in the U.S. I went with those. In this post I refer to the Godox models since they are more widely recognized and the names are a bit simpler.
I currently own two Godox V850II's, two Godox AD200's, and two Godox AD600's. I trigger them with an X1 Wireless Flash Trigger in the camera's hotshoe and control the power of the flashes with an XPro (I used to have an XT32 before the XPro was released) that I keep on me as I walk around moving light stands. The only time the X1 Trigger affects flash power is when you first turn it on, so the rest of the time it doesn't interfere with the settings I choose on the XPro. I never use TTL so I have the manual only, non-TTL versions of all the lights except the AD200, which doesn't come in a manual-only version.
The Godox V850II Li-ion Camera Flash is a speedlight that is powered by a lithium-ion battery, which is a breath of fresh air if you've previously used flashes powered by AA batteries. These lithium-ion batteries are rated to last for 650 full power pops (and I never use lights at full power). I use this primarily for ceiling/wall bounces in small rooms or to highlight areas or objects in larger rooms where I'm also using bigger lights.
The Godox AD200 is a 200W strobe that is about a stop brighter than a normal speedlight. It comes with a detachable Fresnel head and a detachable bare bulb socket to allow for a little more flexibility. It readily accepts a variety of optional accessories made just for this model like a 12" beauty dish, standard reflector, umbrella reflector, dome diffuser, barn doors (included with the basic kit), and more. It is only slightly bigger than a speedlight, so many accessories made for speedlights will fit onto this when the Fresnel head is attached. One thing to note is the AD200 basic package does not include reflectors for use with the bare bulb. These lithium-ion batteries are rated to last for 500 full power pops.
The Godox AD600 is a 600W strobe / monolight that is much brighter, bigger, and heavier than a speedlight. These are great for throwing lots of light into a large room and useful for balancing interiors with exteriors on a sunny day. I often will hand hold these because it has a nice big handle that makes you feel like you're holding a giant photon gun, and when the light fires it goes "POP!" I have to say, even though it's heavy it is fun to walk around with these things. =) TSA also always enjoys scanning these if you ever take it as carryon in an airplane. Their typical question is, "What...IS...that???" These lithium-ion batteries are rated to last for 500 full power pops. The links to the AD600 on this page are to the Bowens Mount model, which is how accessories, like reflectors and beauty dishes, are attached to the light.
So how do these all compare?
In the first gallery below, I have these three flashes (the AD200 is in there twice, once with the bare bulb & standard reflector and once with the Fresnel head) all firing at 1/2 power with the camera set to ISO 100, f8, 1/200th of a second shutter speed:
As you can see the Fresnel head of the AD200 might be a hair brighter than the bare bulb. Otherwise, it all went as expected.
Next, I thought it would be useful info to see what power settings you'd have to use for all of the flashes to be throwing out approximately the same amount of light (they aren't exactly the same but they're close). Notice the flash power settings in the gallery below:
I also tried the AD600 at 1/8th power but it seemed too bright and was probably a bigger exposure difference than 1/16th +0.7.
The 3rd and final gallery takes a look at how even the light spread is from the various lights using various configurations (grid, softbox, diffusers, zoom level, Fresnel head, bare bulb, etc). To do this I turned the power down quite a bit so the bright and dark areas could be easily seen, which helps to show how even or uneven the light spread is. Noted in each image is the configuration:
Some observations from these galleries:
The AD600 is at least a stop brighter than the AD200, and the AD200 is about a stop brighter than the V850II speedlight
The V850II camera flash/speedlight requires a softbox to get a very even light spread, but the softbox knocks out about 1 stop of power
The AD200 bare bulb has a nice even light spread with both reflectors, but it's Fresnel head is not desirable for direct flash and is similar to a speedlight that is zoomed to at least 85mm
The AD600 light spread is not perfect, but comes close when using it's included detachable diffuser
I often use configurations that have uneven light spread when I'm bouncing from walls, ceilings or umbrellas, since bouncing softens and evens out the light source. That being said, it is nice to know what the light spreads look like for situations where direct flash is useful. I do like to use the direct flash of the AD200 bare bulb & standard reflector when doing twilight exteriors, because the AD200 is light enough to hold on the end of a light stand or painter's pole and has a very even light spread.
Below are the lights, transmitters, and a few other items I use. If you use the links on this page, it will help me out! =)
Links to Products Mentioned in this Article
Godox X1 Transmitter for Canon (the one I put in the camera hotshoe to trigger the flashes - Has TTL & HSS)
Godox X1 Transmitter for Nikon
Godox X1 Transmitter for Sony
Godox X1 Transmitter for Fuji
Godox X1 Transmitter for Panasonic/Olympus
Godox XPro Wireless Flash Controller & Trigger for Canon (The one I carry around to control the power of all my lights)
Godox XPro Wireless Flash Controller & Trigger for Nikon
Godox XPro Wireless Flash Controller & Trigger for Sony
Godox XPro Wireless Flash Controller & Trigger for Panasonic/Olympus
Godox XPro Wireless Flash Controller & Trigger for Fuji
Godox AD600 (doesn’t include transmitter)
Spare Battery for the AD600
Godox AD200 (Doesn't include transmitter or bare bulb reflectors)
Godox AD200 Standard Reflector (More directional than the umbrella reflector)
Godox AD200 Umbrella Reflector (Slightly wider spread than the standard reflector)
Godox AD200 12" Beauty Dish
Spare Battery for the AD200
Godox V850II Speedlight (non-TTL manual version)
Westcott 8x12" Pocketbox (Softbox for speedlight or AD200 with Fresnel head)
Spare Battery for the V850II
If you do use TTL, you'd want to look at the V860II instead of the V850II. It's the exact same thing except with TTL. Below is the link:
Godox V860II TTL On-Camera Flash Speedlight
*February 2021 Update: Upgrades!!!*
I originally wrote this article in 2018, and I figured I would have to eventually update the article with new products. While I personally still use the lights I originally wrote about, Godox has updated their lineup to include “Pro” models that have improvements over the originals, and also the new round-head speedlight. The power comparisons are still valid in terms of how much brighter each of the classes of lights are, but there are even more shapes and sizes to pick from!
See also my other article about the speedlight differences: Godox V860II vs. the Godox V1
Here are some of the new models:
Godox AD200 Pro (AKA Flashpoint eVOLV 200 Pro)
Godox AD300 Pro (AKA Flashpoint XPLOR 300 Pro)
Godox AD400 Pro (AKA Flashpoint XPLOR 400 Pro)
Godox AD600 Pro (AKA Flashpoint XPLOR 600 Pro) with Canon R2 Pro Transmitter
Godox AD600 Pro (AKA Flashpoint XPLOR 600 Pro) with Nikon R2 Pro Transmitter
Godox AD600 Pro (AKA Flashpoint XPLOR 600 Pro) with Sony R2 Pro Transmitter
Got a bunch of lights and not sure what to carry them in? See also my review and photos of the Pelican Air 1607 Protector Case, with up close photos before and after I load it up with my gear.