Photoshop Insider

Review: Ray Flash (Turns Your Hot Shoe Flash Into a “Ring Flash”)

By Scott on Friday, June 13th, 2008 at 1:17 am | updates.

I don’t know if you’ll remember back a few months, when I asked for any feedback from my readers on a ring flash adapter made in UK, that connects to your existing hot-shoe flash to give you a ring flash look without buying a heavy/expensive ring flash?

At the time it wasn’t available in the US, and I was asking if anybody had any experience with it, because I was interesting in playing around with ring flash, as it become very popular with fashion photographers, and now you see that broad flat lighting look popping up everywhere (and it’s especially good for Macro photography).

Anyway, one day I’m sitting in our conference room after a meeting had just wrapped up and I look over in Larry Becker’s office, and I see Larry taking a shot with a ring flash. I shot right in there with the usual, “Hey, man! Where’d you get that?” and as it turns out, it’s that UK ring flash adapter I had seen months earlier, but now it’s available in the US from ExpoImaging (the people that make Expo Disc), and the US version is called the Ray Flash (I know, the name kinda…well..you know).

Well, last week Larry told me a local photographer named David Maynard (a really good photographer, by the way) who has become something of an evangelist of this ring flash adapter, and offered to stop by and give us a live demo (he even brought a professional model along with him), so we finally got an hour to play with it, and I have to tell you—I was very impressed.

I took the shots you see above (totally un-retouched—just an exposure balance in Lightroom), during that demo session with David (click on it for a larger view) using a Nikon D300 with an SB-800 on top, mounted on the hot shoe, with the Ray Flash ring flash adapter attached (it actually just slides right over the top of your flash head, and around your lens).

I’m no expert at ring flash at this point, but you can see the flat, broad light it puts out, along with that classic “ring flash” halo that you see so often.

Three things I really liked about it:

It’s very light (considerably lighter than any ring flash I’ve never held, by a long shot).
It’s very easy to use; you pretty much just glide it over your lens, snap your flash head into place, and it’s ready to go (it has no on/off switch, and it’s just redistributing the light from your flash head.
Of course the big thing is; the price. It’s only $299, which is pretty darn cheap for the ring flash effect it creates.

Three minor things I didn’t like:

If you’re using a Nikon flash, it comes with a little wedge you have to insert to keep the ring flash level.
It’s so lightweight, it feels a little flimsy, but not nearly as flimsy as some of the cheaper ring flashes I’ve held, so it’s only a minor gripe, but it is something you’ll notice.
You do lose about a full stop of light from your flash, so you have to run it a little hotter (use more flash power) than normal, so your batteries won’t last quite as long, but again; not a big deal, but just so you know; you’re going to lose a stop.

The Bottomline:
Would I recommend the Ray Flash? Well, I’m buying one myself. The minor things are too minor to be deal-killers, and the advantages (great price, lightweight, small size) make it pretty much a no-brainer for anyone who wants to get a ring flash look, without the ring flash price and weight.

Dave Cross was with me during the demo shoot that day, and he did a short video showing the flash itself and how it attaches to the camera (including the wedge issue for Nikon users), and you can watch it right on Dave’s site, right here.

For more info on the Ray Flash direct from ExpoImaging, click here.

Comment form for this post

^#1

Hi Scott,

I have been reading your blog for a while, first time making a comment, and I have to agree with some other readers. How do you do it? It’s so early and you already made your blog for today. I have been looking into this for a while and it seems very nice. Thank you for sharing your experiece with it and for all the information you share with us. It has help me a lot. Thank you for your time and everything else.

Roberto

Roberto Rivera on June 13th, 2008 at 1:25 am

^#2

See if they will give a NAPP member discount! Hey, we’ll take what we can get right?

Also, any info if there’s a problem mounting it to a Canon flash?

Matt Timmons on June 13th, 2008 at 1:55 am

^#3

Interesting stuff. I’m certainly interested in taking a closer look. I have not decided if I like the light yet however. It seems a bit harsh and direct most the time.

Gavin

Seim Effects on June 13th, 2008 at 2:28 am

^#4

I am assuming at 299.00 US the chick is included?

Nick Gren on June 13th, 2008 at 2:35 am

^#5

Scott,

Thanks for the review. I’m still not convinced with the results, however. Looking at the shots you posted using the Ray Flash, I have to say I agree with Seim Effects’ comment: the Ray Flash looks a little hot and harsh to me.

So far I have been having a lot of success using Gary Fong’s Lightsphere. I chose the clear one because it doesn’t cut as much flash power as the cloudy one. The concept of the Lightsphere makes sense (at least to me). When you spread the light around 360 degrees, all the walls in the room become one gigantic softbox.

I came up with a series of settings that give me very consistent results when taking photos at parties indoors at my friends’ homes.

I set my D300 to Manual Mode with 1/125 and f/6.3 on my 18-200mm lens. I then set the camera to Auto ISO to let the camera choose the ISO to balance the shot. Finally, I set the SB800 on camera with the Lightsphere and dial it down about .3 or .67 of a stop on the back of the flash unit.

The result is that, even when my subjects are standing a foot or two away from a wall, the majority of my pictures are coming out very evenly lit with no harsh shadows and nice illumination of the subject and room. Many pictures don’t even look like they were lit with a flash at all!

The camera does wind up taking some pics at all sorts of ISOs but the D300 is so good with noise, that even shots at 1600 still don’t look noisy. Also, when you crop and then reduce some of the pictures to the small sizes used by Facebook and other websites where I post the pictures for my friends to look at, the noise disappears completely.

Cheers,

Karl-Franz
http://karlfranz.com

Karl-Franz on June 13th, 2008 at 3:11 am

^#6

Karl,
Comparing modifiers with completely different looks and purposes is rather pointless. Sometimes you need a hammer, sometimes you need a screwdriver.
If it were the case that one only needed a softbox, then that would be that but it’s not. We have softboxes, gridded softboxes, silver bounce umbrellas, white shoot thru umbrellas, grids, snoots, Octoboxes, parabolic reflectors, Beauty Dishes and Ringflashes. Why? because they all provide different looks.
FWIW the fong is fine in smaller rooms where there is opportunity to bounce, but much less effective in larger rooms, where you need tons more power to compensate.

Scott,
I specifically upgraded to the 580ex II (from my ancient and now broken 550ex) just to buy this ringflash. I have made my own, but I like the convenience of this one. I’ve seen it and used it, and while still not as effective as the real deal, it’s useful nonetheless.
Cheers for the post!
Sean.

Sean McCormack on June 13th, 2008 at 4:53 am

^#7

Hi,

Bought this ringflash when it came on the market and was very pleased with the results from the start. It took a bit of fine tuning in order to get the right lighting (increase flash output). I am shooting with a D200 and D300 with flashgun SB800. It is very light and easy to fit, a bit bulky to carry around, but hey…you can not always win.

Cheers
Stef

Stephane Junod on June 13th, 2008 at 6:16 am

^#8

It might be considered a “good price” when compared to other ring flashes but considering it doesn’t have any electronics and is just a few molded pieces of plastic, $299 is awful expensive for what is nothing more than a flash modifier. I know, R&D, molds, low volume sales, etc all have to be priced into the item but for me it’s way too pricey. Something like this should be in the $125-$175 range. We are all so conditioned to the high prices with anything that has to do with a camera that we tend to just expect and accept high numbers.

Dan on June 13th, 2008 at 9:56 am

^#9

I agree with Dan. I’ve been looking at ring flashes for quite some time and I think ExpoDisc has really proced this out of whack. I mean correct me if I’, wrong but can’t you buy a Sigma ring flash for around $100 - whoops just did a quick search Adoram has a ring flash for $139. OK now I really dont get it.

Steve Allison on June 13th, 2008 at 11:34 am

^#10

$299 is a bit much for a small non powered ringflash. I actually own the ABR800 from Paul Buff, but it can be used as an off camera flash too with plenty of power for just $100 more. This is just too much for a look that would get old quick after a few sessions which is why I think the more expensive ringflashes are more versatile. I think it’ll drop in price after a year in which case I may get it for portability fun.

Jermaine Beckley on June 13th, 2008 at 12:40 pm

^#11

I’m embarrassed to ask but I will anyway, is red eye a problem with ring flash?
Thanks

Dean Matthews on June 13th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

^#12

Yeah, $300 seems a little steep for a non powered gizmo that clips on to my flash, especially when the Alien Bees Ring Flash is only $400. I love the idea of this thing, but I wouldn’t pay more than $75 for one.

Nick on June 13th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

^#13

Put me in the “too pricey” group. I can’t see paying more then $100 for a flash “modifier”.

Chris on June 13th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

^#14

Scott,

I am afraid I beat you to the draw on the Rays Ringlight and the toxic things that happen.

http://kblawson.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/global-warming-%e2%80%93-ray-ringflash/

I hope no one becomes ill using this ringlight

Ken

Ken on June 13th, 2008 at 7:46 pm

^#15

Hi Scott,

I’m a bit curious why none of images I’ve seen using this ringflash have the telltale “Doughnett Hole” catchlight.
Any ideas?

Thanks to you and the NAPP Team. You’ve become as important to my business as any piece of equipment.
NAAP is so great that I can’t understand why anyone would not join. The return on my membership fee is outstanding !

Thanks again,
Ira

Ira Paris on June 14th, 2008 at 9:30 pm

^#16

Useful info as always, thanks Scott.
Scott, could you please comment on the Lastolite Ezybox hotshoe softbox? I’d really appreciate that. Thanks

Fakhra (UAE) on June 15th, 2008 at 10:04 am

^#17

Ira, the catch is somewhat less than desirable with this design if what you want is a ring… It’s more like a donut with a bite taken, or a “C”. You can search for “rayflash” on flickr to see it. It’s a necessary evil with this design since otherwise the flash will be too hot at the top portion (closer to the light source).

Maverick Woo on June 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

^#18

As I believe someone else has mentioned; the AlienBees ABR800 RingFlash is 399… which in comparison for the extra 100 would be a far greater investment than just an adapter that creates a “similar” flash as this would. Their price point is interesting when this comparison is made. But, I guess that is nice to know that there are other options out there for some.

E. Collins on June 15th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

^#19

I believe this product originated from Czech rather than from UK - http://www.ringflash.cz

There was a review already a while go posted on http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/Ringflash.shtml, and the price mentioned in the review is significantly lower than $299

Fore me personally, three hundred bucks for a piece of plastic sounds way too much.

MikLav on June 15th, 2008 at 3:27 pm

^#20

Considering Canon’s ring flash is only $470, I think it does a lot more. I use the MR-14EX at my dental office for dental close-ups as well as full face portraits.

M Campbell on June 15th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

^#21

FYI to everyone:

If you want to buy this and you’re a NAPP member—you can get free shipping from B&H, they carry it. No sales tax too depending on where you live.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=0&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2Fproduct.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&shs=rayflash&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2Fproduct.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=submit

If you’re not a NAPP member, you should be. If you go to this blog a lot you probably buy camera gear from B&H. NAPP members get free 3 day shipping, so it can pay for itself very quickly.

http://www.photoshopuser.com/

alanvalek.com on June 16th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

^#22

Canon’s ring flash is really only good close up, and the alien bees one is AC, so studio-only. You could take your rayflash to a wedding.

I think they’d sell 10 times as many at $100, but I guess they have their reasons.

I might buy one. Worst-case, you could sell it on ebay for $270.

jodaboda on June 16th, 2008 at 5:11 pm

^#23

It’s hard to go wrong with a model that pretty.

Richard H. Serlin on June 16th, 2008 at 5:28 pm

^#24

Is the Ray Flash, the only alternative for lightweight “ring flash” ?
If so, will the Ray Flash work on a 430 EX flash?

Sam B. on June 26th, 2008 at 10:42 pm

^#25

i’d get one, but do any of the current models fit a sigma ef-500 dg super flash unit? really appreciate if anyone knows

michael on September 24th, 2008 at 3:36 am

^#26

Scott,
Thanks for the review, I went out and bought a Ray-Flash, tested it and it works great, it completely eliminated hot spots produced by the SB800. A note, the Ray-Flash tilts downward when attached, adn I read somewhere that Ray-Flash had produced plastic shims to get rid of the problem. I wrote to Ray-Flash since my unit did not come with shims and their reply was they do not make any shims. They seemed to indicate that a third party made the shims, do you have any idea who that might be, otherwise I am going to have to fabricate a shim/wedge myself? Thanks for all your books too.

Bill V on October 2nd, 2008 at 10:32 am