DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,

Has anyone used or owns one of these frames? For those who don't know what they are - You use them so the flash is always centred over the lens whether the camera is vertical or horizontal. I was just surfing the Net and came across this product.

Interested to know how good or bad they are and if there are any better ones on the market for when taking photos handheld.

Cheers,
Bill

yeah i got one, it really sucks
1. cant hold sc28 hotshoe which holds the sb800 unless you buy a hotshoe to 1/4 screw attachment

2.tripod atachment rickety at best held together with a 1/4 screw some stroboframe models don't even come with a tripod attachment at the bottom

i bought it on ebay for US$50 because i could not afford the RRS version with the arca swiss attachment at US$400+

mrbillf wrote:For those who don't know what they are - You use them so the flash is always centred over the lens whether the camera is vertical or horizontal.

Which, in all honesty, is the last place that you really want to have your flash head.

That location tends to lead red-eye.

You really want to have the flash head offset to one side, as well as above the lens axis.

Look for something (or make up one) that emulates a hammer head style of flashunit.

wendellt wrote:yeah i got one, it really sucks
1. cant hold sc28 hotshoe which holds the sb800 unless you buy a hotshoe to 1/4 screw attachment

2.tripod atachment rickety at best held together with a 1/4 screw some stroboframe models don't even come with a tripod attachment at the bottom

i bought it on ebay for US$50 because i could not afford the RRS version with the arca swiss attachment at US$400+

Wendellt,
They're not equal and you get what you paid and end of the day with other annoyances + wasting lot of resources, the US$400 is worth in your investment.

I have one and would not recommend it

sirhc55 wrote:I have one and would not recommend it

Why not Chris?
It's still a budget or economical buy for someone who has $$$ but doesn't want the best! like someone has $25.00 tripod and wondering why should they spend money for the $500.00 tripod, they're just three metal or carbon fibre sticks
At the end of the day, lot of folks around want to see the green on other side after long research and study.

I use one, and works like a dream, its light enough to use, bought it of ebay and never regretted it.

Birddog114 wrote:

sirhc55 wrote:I have one and would not recommend it

Why not Chris?

I cut my finger on it - BTW they are now imported and sold in Oz through a distributor in Perth http://www.cameraelectronic.com.au/

gstark wrote:

mrbillf wrote:For those who don't know what they are - You use them so the flash is always centred over the lens whether the camera is vertical or horizontal.

Which, in all honesty, is the last place that you really want to have your flash head.

That location tends to lead red-eye.

You really want to have the flash head offset to one side, as well as above the lens axis.

The only thing to minimise red-eye (or "silver-eye" with many birds/animals) is to move the flash as far away from the lens axis as possible. It has nothing to do with being above the camera. The "hammer" style of flash moves the flash up and to the side, but it's the resulting distance from the flash to the lens axis that matters.

Because we live in a world where the sun is generally overhead, we subconsciously expect to see shadows below an object, not to one side. This is the prime reason we mount our flashes above the lens and not to the side: to make the image feel more "natural" and pleasing to the viewer.

But it's not a hard-n-fast rule. When photographing people in hats on sunny days and using flash for fill under the hat brim, I've sometimes got the best results by holding the camera upside down. You get funny looks from some people, but the results are worth it!

DaveB wrote:When photographing people in hats on sunny days and using flash for fill under the hat brim, I've sometimes got the best results by holding the camera upside down.

Wouldn't taking a photo like that highlight nostral hairs which are usually hidden in the shadows ?

I'm talking about cases such as V8 drivers out of their cars wearing peaked caps on a sunny day. With the flash on-camera and above the lens (or without flash at all) their eyes end up in shadow. By inverting the camera you can get nice fill across their face.
It's only fill flash, after all.

DaveB wrote:

gstark wrote:

mrbillf wrote:For those who don't know what they are - You use them so the flash is always centred over the lens whether the camera is vertical or horizontal.

Which, in all honesty, is the last place that you really want to have your flash head.

That location tends to lead red-eye.

You really want to have the flash head offset to one side, as well as above the lens axis.

The only thing to minimise red-eye (or "silver-eye" with many birds/animals) is to move the flash as far away from the lens axis as possible. It has nothing to do with being above the camera. The "hammer" style of flash moves the flash up and to the side, but it's the resulting distance from the flash to the lens axis that matters.

Dave,

Do want the flash to be below the lens though? I suspect not, because that can throw a shadow above and behind your subject. It's not exactly a good look.

Thus above, and offset to one side, or the other, is the preferred placement.

Simply placing it above the lens, but on the same axis, is not a satisfactory solution IMHO, because, as you agree, putting it on the same axis leads to an increased possibility of redeye.

Because we live in a world where the sun is generally overhead, we subconsciously expect to see shadows below an object, not to one side.

It actually goes a long way beyond that, though.

Try shooting a portrait of somebody with a hammer head, but place the head so that it's below the lens axis, and throwing a shadow above the subject. As I've noted above, it's not a good look at all, and that's nothing to do with our expectation of where the sun might place its shadow. It simply looks bad.

I've sometimes got the best results by holding the camera upside down. You get funny looks from some people, but the results are worth it!

I get them to tilt their head up a little. It doesn't take much to pull a built-in flash to shoot under-the-brim.

gstark wrote:Simply placing it above the lens, but on the same axis, is not a satisfactory solution IMHO, because, as you agree, putting it on the same axis leads to an increased possibility of redeye.

Being on the same axis would mean that the flash was inside your lens: the axis in this case is a virtual line (not a plane!) running down the middle of the lens towards the subject. To minimise red/sliver-eye you want the flash to be as far away from that as possible so that the light reflected back towards the flash by the back of the subject's eyes is not coming towards the lens. To reduce red-eye it doesn't matter in which direction away from that axis the flash is (and thus having the flash above the lens is perfectly valid) but the direction will have an impact on the shadows.

I do concede your point that for close-distance subjects, having the flash above and to the side is more likely to produce pleasing shadows.
In telephoto work we don't worry about the to-the-side bit much, and simply raising the flash above the lens as far as reasonable is typically enough.

My example about having the flash below the lens was just an example that whatever "rules" we talk about are just guidelines. There are sure to be cases where the optimum flash position is different from "normal". Filling in the shadows below a hat brim on a sunny day (and yes I've used it successfully) was just the example that came to mind.

gstark wrote:

I've sometimes got the best results by holding the camera upside down. You get funny looks from some people, but the results are worth it!

I get them to tilt their head up a little. It doesn't take much to pull a built-in flash to shoot under-the-brim.

In the heat of the moment, with lots of people wanting the driver's attention for interviews/etc, you often don't have time to stretch their patience and get them to pose in just the right way. And when you're up close and the subject is wearing a peaked cap, the angle they would have to tilt their head up can be quite severe (I initially had "xtreme" there but "extreme" didn't look right! ).
Using a built-in flash which would be closer to the lens axis and thus require less tilt (and more likely to induce red-eye) is often not an option due to the lens hood casting a shadow across the lower half of the image. Even if in this case we didn't care about a fill-flash shadow across the lower part of the frame, there's often not time to switch between built-in and hot-shoe flash: 10 seconds later you may have to be shooting a different subject!

There are times that you just work with whatever you've got on hand. Flipping the camera and flash upside down has worked for me in some situations, ok?

DaveB wrote:Being on the same axis would mean that the flash was inside your lens:

Not so - at least not my understanding. There are two axes - a vertical one, and a horizontal one. Typically, the low end DSLRs place the lens and built in flash on the same vertical axis., but obviously, they're on a different horizontal axis.

IAC, I believe that we're in furious agreement over this, with the point being that the flash is optimally placed at some point that is not not going to have the flash looking straight down the light path and back up directly into the centre of the lens.

DaveB wrote:Using a built-in flash which would be closer to the lens axis and thus require less tilt (and more likely to induce red-eye) is often not an option due to the lens hood casting a shadow across the lower half of the image.

Some might argue that if you're using fill flash, there might be less of a need for the lenshood.

But also, and in particular regarding the specific situation that you're describing, I would not expect redeye to become an issue.

A significant part of the redeye issue derives from the amount of available light that you have to work with, and in situations where there is a low level of ambient light, your subjects' eyes are more likely to be dilated, and thus exaccerbating the issue.

In an outdoor situation, or in bright shade, such as one might encounter when shooting a driver inside or adjacent to his car, the eyes are less likely to be dilated, and the redeye problem goes bye-bye.

Even if in this case we didn't care about a fill-flash shadow across the lower part of the frame, there's often not time to switch between built-in and hot-shoe flash: 10 seconds later you may have to be shooting a different subject!

For situations like this, I wouldn't even bother with an accessory flash if I have a built-in one to use. I have the flash constantly set to around -0.7 stops and it takes all of a poofteenth of a second to pop the flash and I'm good to go.

There are times that you just work with whatever you've got on hand. Flipping the camera and flash upside down has worked for me in some situations, ok?

Always.

But then you need to remember to turn your printer upside down to get optimal images.

*imagining using Gary's technique with printers with the huge laser printer at work.... ouch* hehe

almost bought one of those stroboflash brackets from ebay a month back and still may well do that. I like that it would give more distance from my lens to the flash and also give rom to mount an inflatable mini softbox diffuser to the flash with shooting handheld. Normally for my nightclub shoots I drag a whopper of a tripod everywhere with me to hold the flash but after my first flash was trashed by a drunken twit carrying his drinks backwards through a group of chairs, this option of keeping the flash on a bracket is mighty tempting.

The ones I saw on ebay looked very sturdy and a bargain for $60 delivered.