Canon MR-14EX I vs II?

[Perio]

Hello, my dear friends. Some of you might read that I was asking some advice on the camera setup for dental clinic. I'd like to ask you if anybody used both Canon MR-14EX (original version) and Canon MR-14EX II macro ring lite flashes? Are there any differences specifically for my use in the clinic with the controlled and ambient light? Unfortunately, reviews on Amazon/B&H are very scarce, and I don't want to part with $500 buying a wrong item. Thank you all in advance!

 

[wopbv4]

A bit of topic, I use the MT-24EX.
The advantage is that you can take each of the two flash heads of the mount and position them anywhere you like on small light stands.
Please be aware that this is NOT an easy flash to operate. First of all, it is not recognised by my 7D or 1DX, so you have to change all the settings on the flash it self (E-TTL works!). Furthermore, "balancing" the light is very tricky as you are working close to the subject. A change in working distance of a few centimeters will mean that you have to change the power output of the flash.

I have had great results with flowers and insect, using a macro 100 II, but it takes a lot of effort to get it right.
Furthermore, please check that the flash fits on the lens that you want to use e.g. for the 100 mm macro you need an adapter ring.

Hope this informs

Ben

 

[Perio]

Hi Ben, thanks for your input. I've read that MT-24EX is more difficult to work and much more expensive with as compared to MR-14EX, so I don't really consider it. I need something easy and straightforward, as troubleshooting flash is the least thing I want to do while working.

A bit of topic, I use the MT-24EX.
The advantage is that you can take each of the two flash heads of the mount and position them anywhere you like on small light stands.
Please be aware that this is NOT an easy flash to operate. First of all, it is not recognised by my 7D or 1DX, so you have to change all the settings on the flash it self (E-TTL works!). Furthermore, "balancing" the light is very tricky as you are working close to the subject. A change in working distance of a few centimeters will mean that you have to change the power output of the flash.

I have had great results with flowers and insect, using a macro 100 II, but it takes a lot of effort to get it right.
Furthermore, please check that the flash fits on the lens that you want to use e.g. for the 100 mm macro you need an adapter ring.

Hope this informs

Ben

 

[neuroanatomist]

The differences are minor. The MkII version recycles faster, has LED modeling lights (vs. incandescent), has a nicer display, and has threads to take a filter on the front. I see no meaningful differences for your application.

Regarding the twin lite (MT-24EX), I have one and it's better than the ring light for 'creative' uses (bugs, flowers, snowflakes, etc.). The ring light delivers flatter lighting that's preferable for documentary/medical imaging.

 

[Perio]

Thanks Neuro! There is one used MkI version on KEH for $400, so I thought if it'd be better to save some money and get it instead of new MkII vestion ($550).

The differences are minor. The MkII version recycles faster, has LED modeling lights (vs. incandescent), has a nicer display, and has threads to take a filter on the front. I see no meaningful differences for your application.

Regarding the twin lite (MT-24EX), I have one and it's better than the ring light for 'creative' uses (bugs, flowers, snowflakes, etc.). The ring light delivers flatter lighting that's preferable for documentary/medical imaging.

 

[mwh1964]

Hi you can the MkI version mich cheaper on Ebay than 400. Actually I have one for sale at 300, but that's another story. I do agree with the other reply that the ring flash doesn't produce the best lighting.

 

[Perio]

I hope that the differences will be visible only in real life, but not in the surgery room. I'll check ebay, thanks for suggestions!

Hi you can the MkI version mich cheaper on Ebay than 400. Actually I have one for sale at 300, but that's another story. I do agree with the other reply that the ring flash doesn't produce the best lighting.

 

[scottkinfw]

Another thing to consider, and right off, I have no knowledge of any of the flashes discussed, however, I have a lot of clinical experience, and especially, medical photography experience. For what you do, you don't want a system that is difficult and that will require a lot of time and repeat shooting to get the right exposure. Your patients are not there for modeling purposes, and may not want to get their pics taken anyway. You want to get the shot ASAP and then get on with your work. Therefore, get the flash system that will get the job done efficiently.

Also, patients want you to pay attention to them, not the technology.

Just my 2 cents.

sek

 

[Perio]

Yup, exactly my point. What I've also read about MR-14EX I and II is that they tend to give flat light with no shades, which macro people don't really like (since it doesn't give them a nice 3D image). In contrast, it's very useful for medical/dental/pathological specialties, where people don't really want to have shades.

Another thing to consider, and right off, I have no knowledge of any of the flashes discussed, however, I have a lot of clinical experience, and especially, medical photography experience. For what you do, you don't want a system that is difficult and that will require a lot of time and repeat shooting to get the right exposure. Your patients are not there for modeling purposes, and may not want to get their pics taken anyway. You want to get the shot ASAP and then get on with your work. Therefore, get the flash system that will get the job done efficiently.

Also, patients want you to pay attention to them, not the technology.

Just my 2 cents.

sek