I was setting up to do some baseball card copying with my digital camera today. I have a home-made copy stand and generally just use the two-tube fluorescent ceiling light as a light source which usually works OK. The thought struck me that it was probably time to get an LED ring light instead. I looked on eBay, and found lots of ring lights there. The one I picked has 48 LEDs, runs on two AA batteries, and attaches to the lens filter screw mount. Light output can be cut by half (using 24 LEDs), also has several filters to change the color temperature. All for $22, shipping included. So I ordered one. Does anyone else have experience using ring lights?

I saw a ring light at Dollar Tree for $5, but it was set up for use with a cell phone, not really what I was looking for.

At work we had a Nikon digital SLR with a macro lens and a built-in ring light. Used that lens for closeup views of small objects in the museum collection. They are a good way to produce glare free and shadow free shots with even lighting.

__________________
Heavily armed old man.

I wish some of the YouTube creators who insist on putting their ugly mugs into the videos would stop using them. They make odd looking reflections in their pupils.

I have seen that. Look like shiny donuts on their eyes. I would not use a ring light for taking pictures of faces or anything very reflective for that reason. For some copy work I have used my wife's LED sewing Ott-Lite as a light source.

They are terrible for portraits. Diffusers are mandatory for faces.

__________________
Heavily armed old man.

Ring lights are more useful when the subject is smaller than the ring itself. The light illuminates the subject from all directions. When the subject is larger, than with the ring all you have is a rather weird on-axis light. IMHO, you'd be better off with a main and fill light illuminating the subject. If the subject is flat, like your cards, then you'll only need one off-axis light.