RINGFLASH OR TWINLIGHT?
We are frequently asked about the differences between Canon’s MR-14 Ringflash and MT-24 Twinlight: which is the preferred tool? The answer lies entirely on the job it needs to perform. If you’re making intra oral photos for patient education, treatment documentation, and so on, the Ringflash is a superb flash — easy to use, consistent results, high quality. But if a major part of your practice requires you to make good anterior shots to share with your lab for shade matching, then the Twinlight is your preferred alternative. The traditional ringflash, where the source of illumination is directly on the lens axis, produces a harsh reflection on the centrals. Not only does this limit color information, it also greatly reduces surface texture. Edge, shape, opalescence; all are poorly reproduced with the ringflash, and preserved to a much greater degree with the twinlight. At the same time, the twinlight easily serves double-duty by being just as useful in making all the intra oral shots, as well.
Nikon’s ringflash solution for their digital SLR’s is the superb R1 Speedlight, which is a twinlight configuration and an excellent flash for both intra oral and shade-matching photography.
2 Comments to RINGFLASH OR TWINLIGHT?
Thank you for the clarification.
Dr. CarstenJanuary 30, 2008
The twin point flashes are much better for color, more flexible
in use, and more powerful. Indispensable for showing texture or shade matching. The ring lights are easier to use.
Dave Carsten
January 30, 2008