Shane

Life Member
  • Content count

    803
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 of my posts have been liked

4 Followers

About Shane

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 18 August

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    3rd rock from the sun
  • Edit my pics?
    Ask Me
  1. The quartz tubes are rated for 2400ws but they are still used with the 400ws power supply. They also will not provide much additional UV unless you can record below 300nm so cost effective wise they may not be such a good upgrade. The shorter the flash duration, the higher the UV content, but the lower the ws output. Lumedyne designed the Action pack 400ws and 200ws for high speed action. If I remember correctly, these units require the 2400ws quartz tubes due to the high current density incurred during the short flash duration. Funnily enough when I talked to Lumedyne they said the biggest problem with these units is the excess blue light (and UV!). An inherent property of the short flash duration which is a problem for the majority of photographers but not this group. You will also note the 200ws unit has the shortest flash duration which also means the highest UV output. In my opinion, especially considering UV output for dollars spent, I would pass on the expensive Action packs & 2400ws tubes and stick with the standard flash units with 400ws power supplies. I also messed briefly with the Quantum 150ws and 400ws units but again cost effectiveness pushed me to Lumedyne setup. The Lumedyne flash heads and power supplies are so basic in design their is little to go wrong, unlike some of the fancy Quantum systems, so Lumedynes seem to go on forever. A similar system to Lumedyne is produced by Norman but I found the Lumedyne options more attractive. Toby can probably provide more info on the Quantum systems as he currently uses them.
  2. Aaron I am not sure Bob still frequents this forum but I have corresponded with him on several occasions. He uses the old Lumedynes 400ws units, which are quite inexpensive on ebay, in fact mine cost $50 for the head. Two of them are run off a 400ws power supply, so the output power is split into two 200ws giving a total for the three Lumedynes of 800ws using the standard 400ws flash tubes. I tested one of these tubes for him and found the glass envelope transmits down to around 300nm. You could boost the power to 1200ws for the three units but this would require 3 power supplies. For your in-house situation it would probably be worth picking up the Lumedyne AC-DC converters rather than battery packs for each power supply.
  3. Nikon D40/D40X/D50/D60 RRS BD40-L right angle camera bracket $90 includes Paypal & shipping CONUS.
  4. Nikon D70 Kirk PZ-92 camera plate $35 includes Paypal and shipping CONUS
  5. Thanks for adding to the list.
  6. I understand what you are saying Marco and I appreciate your input. I actually have the RRS pano setup but do not always have it with me.
  7. thanks Bjørn
  8. Bjørn I wondered if your comments on the LV performance were heavily biased towards the use of these models to UV rather than IR? If my question was based on an IR830 conversion would there be some hope, given that there is only a few EV differential compared to application for UV?.
  9. I agree but it's one more thing to think about, that's why I suggested it would be easier using the crop delineation in the view finder.
  10. You can but for stitching images it would be easier to work with the 1.2 crop indicated in the view finder to establish the edges of each component image.
  11. thanks to both of you for the feed back. I was leaning towards the D610 originally but when I considered the crop factor the D610 was too high at 1.5x for my use. Ultimately, the deciding factor would be Live View implementation.
  12. I am particularly interested in the details that influenced your choice between the D600/610 and the 800/800E with regards to UV/IR Live View implementation. Although I prefer the CF over the SD, the main point that made the D800/E a possible candidate was the in-camera 1.2 crop factor for "eliminating" corner aberrations when stitching. Why does the D600/610 UV/IR Live View performance exceed that of the D800/E?
  13. Unfortunately the Zeiss 21/2.8 is a poor IR performer.
  14. I wonder if you must be the original purchaser to qualify?
  15. Has anyone tried either of these lenses for IR (720nm or 830nm)? Given their design I suspect the outcome is unlikely to be good but always worth asking. Also does anyone know the wavelengths of the CA correction zero-crossing points or where the plots may be available?