UPDATE: November 21 2017
Another photographer contacted me via this post to ask me about the CononMark. He sent me photos of his unit and I can confirm that it is ‘backwards’ meaning the focusing rod is in the wrong direction. He also stated that some of his rods are not screwed all the way in so it makes it difficult to assemble the unit. I suggested he return it for a replacement or refund.
On his unit the swivel is on the interior of the modifier. It should be on the outside.
On my unit the swivel and focusing rod adjustment knob are in the correct position.
Another shot of his ‘backwards’ focusing rod. It appears that CononMark has modified the focusing rod since I purchased mine by fabricating a collar on the end of the rod. Mine has a threaded knob to keep the rod from running through the swivel.
I reversed my circular panel when I received mine as the white portion was facing the inside of the modifier. I prefer to light qualities of the silver face, so I simply reversed the face of the reflector.
UPDATE October 2 2017
I have written a post about a dance session I conducted that uses these items. You can view that post here.
UPDATE August 21 2017
I have been using the CononMark 120 for a little over a year now in many of my commercial shoots. I have been very pleased with the light it produces along with its durability. Keep in mind that I don’t leave any of my modifiers constantly assembled since I travel TO client shoots in different states and either haul or rent gear. The one small gripe I have with the CononMark is the rod ends which go into the actual modifier can come out of their pockets so I have to check when assembling if all are in place. Other manufacturers like Cheetahstand, Parabolix and Westcott have a better rod retention systems. I have recently written my thoughts about the Parabolix 35D where I also speak about the CononMark. You will read loads of forums about whether a modifier is actually ‘parabolic’ in shape. I would advise you NOT to place an undo amount of credibility on the theory of a modifier being an exact parabola. The shape of any modifier does have an influence on the light BUT there are TONS of other factors that come into play. Distance from talent, tension of the fabric, texture of the fabric, depth of the strobe in the modifier, on and on and on and on. What you will find is almost all of the trolls touting the EXACT nature of a modifier’s parabolic shape seldom and more often NEVER display their work. How can anyone decide if any tool is correct for their own uses based solely on theory? Photography is totally subjective. When you buy a car listed at 240 horsepower, do you take it to an independent dyno lab to have it actually measure the output at the rear wheels for horsepower? Does it really matter that much or does it simply stroke your ego to say “My car has 240 HP!” And even if it DOES have 240 HP that doesn’t mean shit unless you know how to drive and USE that power.
My point is if possible rent or borrow gear you’re thinking about buying. Try it, see how it works for YOU and YOUR client base. What works for me may not work for you and vice versa. But one thing is certain, those who simply spew out statistics and theoretical bull shit are never going to help anyone other than their own need to ‘be right.’ They are the ones who carry a print out of a Histogram instead of the photo to show “How they achieved a perfect histogram in the photo.”
Here are two images taken with the CononMark as the key light.
You can see some of the results from a recent studio dance session using the CononMark here.
CononMark was used as the key light in this studio ballet session. Strobe was the Godox AD600 using a H600 remote head.
BTS shot. Dancers l-r; Emily Dixon, Christy Martin, Natalie Anton, Kaitlyn McDermitt.
Dancer: Emily Dixon Colorado Ballet
Dancer: Kaitlyn McDermitt Avant Chamber Ballet
Dancer: Natalie Anton Avant Chamber Ballet