Einstein 640 vs Profoto D1 comparison by Kern-Photo

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

FM Forums \| Lighting & Studio Techniques \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 end

BrianO
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #1 · Einstein 640 vs Profoto D1 comparison by Kern-Photo

BrianO wrote: ...IGBTs and thyristors...act like gates that quickly shut off the current to the flash tube when the desired output has been reached...

...older studio strobes...use voltage control to change the exposure, lowering the...voltage applied to the tube, which causes a more-gradual ramp-up and ramp-down (especially the latter), resulting in longer durations at lower power.

BTW, this also explains why non-IGBT/non-thyristor strobes experience color shifts with power changes, whereas Speedlites, Einsteins (in Color Mode), and some other strobes have relatively constant color across their power bands.

Oct 22, 2012 at 05:23 AM

Micky Bill
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · Einstein 640 vs Profoto D1 comparison by Kern-Photo

I've used studio strobes for years and when I needed a quick flash for a pour shot or to freze action I would use multi heads at lower output instead of one or two heads at higher WS output....not all that familiar with speed lights...

Oct 22, 2012 at 02:42 PM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #3 · Einstein 640 vs Profoto D1 comparison by Kern-Photo

Micky ... good point @ splitting power vs. reducing power.

Splitting the full power (non-IGBT shortest duration) to be discharged is not the same as reducing the power (non-IGBT longer duration) to be discharged. The ability to SPLIT the power is an inherent advantage of pack design that will allow for a quicker discharge (iirc) that I had forgotten about.

Kinda like opening two faucets from one pipe ... the amount to be drained from the pipe remains the same, but it'll drain quicker with two faucets wide open rather than just one. Conversely, simply throttling one valve halfway closed will take longer to drain the pipe, even though less water is coming out of it. (Crude, I know.)

Hmmmm, maybe I might want to revisit a small pack system (low power=short duration ROT) that is splittable (even shorter duration) to augment monolight approach ... then an IGBT monolight isn't as necessary for shorter duration applications ... and AC, modifiers & modeling lights are still in play.

I guess the point @ "wasted power" is that in one scenario ... it (monolight/hotshoe) is being reduced and either dumped or gated (IGBT vs. non-IGBT). The other scenario (pack) it is being "split" and used (non-IGBT).

Oct 22, 2012 at 03:09 PM

kev857
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · Einstein 640 vs Profoto D1 comparison by Kern-Photo

Hi All

would the einstein be good to hyper sync? to use with a 85 mm 1.2 for outdoors

a novice regarding strobes

kev

Mar 07, 2013 at 09:54 AM

kev857
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #5 · Einstein 640 vs Profoto D1 comparison by Kern-Photo

Hi All

would the einstein be good to hyper sync? to use with a 85 mm 1.2 for outdoors

a novice regarding strobes

kev

Mar 07, 2013 at 10:42 AM

cordellwillis
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · Einstein 640 vs Profoto D1 comparison by Kern-Photo

kev857 wrote:
Hi All

would the einstein be good to hyper sync? to use with a 85 mm 1.2 for outdoors

a novice regarding strobes

kev

Not really. Flash duration is rather short. Though I've read some who have been successful. All things depends on the gear being used. This includes triggers, camera, how much you're trying to sync, etc.

Mar 07, 2013 at 03:30 PM

multiblitzusa
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · Einstein 640 vs Profoto D1 comparison by Kern-Photo

Hi all....I know....late to the party.

I read the post back then and decided not to comment, because this can backfire really bad. I'm not here to bash any competitor's product since we believe every product out there deserves its spot in the market place.

I know the Einstein is all about flash duration (and it's good at it) and it is the only monolight on the market that uses IGBT technology, but RJ Kern is definitely comparing apples to oranges. Take a look at the image comparison with the duck.

With same camera settings and:

Einstein at 1/8 power = 80 Ws
D1 at 7 i.e. 1/8 power = 125 Ws

in a perfect world.

The images look pretty much the same exposure-wise, correct? That would imply that a) Profoto is polishing their output, or b) the Einstein creates the same amount of light at almost a stop down.

My thoughts:
- While there is the possibility that brands polish their numbers, does Profoto need to do that (by almost a stop) with their position in the market?
- It is very unlikely that statement b) is true.

Also, we recently did a bare bulb comparison of a 400 Ws unit with the Einstein 640 Ws unit.

We observed three things:
1) At max power, a 400 Ws unit was still brighter than the 640 Ws Einstein
2) Dialing down the Einstein one or two steps down (320 and 160 Ws respectively) didn't really change output (if that is the case, these are called "pseudo-stops")
3) The 250 W modeling lamp was dimmer than our 150 W at max power

I am not claiming anything here, these are observations and if you have the chance to compare an Einstein to any other unit, just do a little testing yourself.

My question is: Why didn't RJ test the Einstein at full power = 640Ws and the D1 at 9.3-9.4 (approx 640Ws) to make this a real side-to-side comparison. The Einstein still would've had the edge in flash duration.

Draw your own conclusion...

Apr 19, 2013 at 08:42 PM

a2rob
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #8 · Einstein 640 vs Profoto D1 comparison by Kern-Photo

Based on the test, I still purchased the profoto d=D1!!

Apr 19, 2013 at 10:53 PM

rico
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #9 · Einstein 640 vs Profoto D1 comparison by Kern-Photo

multiblitzusa,

Specification of studio light output, as practiced, is pretty ad-hoc. If a photon is generated at all, then it has to escape its immediate confinements of flash tube, cover glass, and reflector without being absorbed. After that it needs to reach the general vicinity of the subject. Features like a frosted dome with UV-filtering at the source is going to lower the effective output, while improving the light quality. Similarly for light pattern at the destination, when graduated roll-off will be penalized by the spec (if using a 10% rule). None of this appears to be properly accounted for, and that's fine. Photogs familiar with this stuff take the spec with a large grain of salt, especially if comparing between technologies (xenon, LED, magnesium flash bulbs), or specific brands.

Apr 19, 2013 at 11:16 PM

kenyee
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · Einstein 640 vs Profoto D1 comparison by Kern-Photo

multiblitzusa wrote
The images look pretty much the same exposure-wise, correct? That would imply that a) Profoto is polishing their output, or b) the Einstein creates the same amount of light at almost a stop down
...
1) At max power, a 400 Ws unit was still brighter than the 640 Ws Einstein
2) Dialing down the Einstein one or two steps down (320 and 160 Ws respectively) didn't really change output (if that is the case, these are called "pseudo-stops")
3) The 250 W modeling lamp was dimmer than our 150 W at max power

Power doesn't really matter much. F stop meter readings do.
Ditto what rico said about domes. Also some have better reflectors (shinier, more parabolic, etc.)
Modeling lamps can be more or less efficient as well, same as halogen bulbs on cars.

You're guilty of not specifying enough from your numbers as well..how did you test? What did you measure with? What modifiers were on the strobes? Are you pimping one of your new strobes?

Apr 19, 2013 at 11:30 PM

multiblitzusa
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · Einstein 640 vs Profoto D1 comparison by Kern-Photo

All valid points guys, let's discuss:

I just kept our product specs/name etc. out of the game (except the Ws) to not promote our product. The strobe we used was released a few years ago, so this is not a product launch/introduction attempt. Board admins don't really like that.

The main reason I chimed in was
a) that the comparison had flaws, especially in the power settings. That's why I compared our recent on-the-fly test regarding output. If the Einstein really has pseudo-stops and around 400 Ws max than it would have around 100 Ws at 1/8 which makes it comparable to the D1 at 1/8 with around 125 Ws. Also non-IGBT units cannot compete with an IGBT unit when it comes to flash duration anyway.

b) To inspire to compare and test yourself. I'll bet you'd have similar results with most other units out there no matter what you own...well, except WL and AB. BTW, we did the comparison with an AB800 ("320 Ws") as well a few weeks back and the power difference is pretty much consistent with the Einstein comparison.

@rico
We know that Ws specifications are taken with a grain of salt, b/c they are easy to manipulate (no really, it has XXX Ws) just by not stating the true value or inventing something like true/effective Ws to confuse the customer. What you cannot really pimp is the GN, i.e. light meter readings, except if you use spotty reflectors or change the distance. Usually, GN measurements are done with silver coated 7", ca. 50º standard reflectors and most of the brands actually comply to this "standard".

I understand that comparing LED's with flash tubes doesn't make sense, but these are all xenon flash tubes. Some of the brands use pyrex tubes, some use quartz - this might cause a slight difference. The coating is pretty much the same. I accept that frosted/coated pyrex domes can make more of a difference. All in all, these differences would be in 1/10th of stop range, but not half to full stops.

@kenyee
In the end, "brightness" or better luminous intensity has the dimension of J=Ws and does matter, b/c it is one of the variables that determines your light meter reading next to distance and the reflector used. See above regarding reflectors used during measurements - of course, everyone can cheat though. And yes, modeling lamps can truly differ in effectiveness, I just stated that a supposedly stronger 250 W (about 66% stronger) tube at Einstein's max power is actually dimmer than a 150 W halogen tube in ours. Effectiveness cannot really account for a 100 W difference IMO, but maybe I'm alone on this one. Also, the Einstein halogen tube was not frosted, ours was frosted.

I agree, that saying it was "brighter" sounds not precise enough...but the difference was at least half a stop (Einstein < ours), when it pretty much should be the other way around.

- As I mentioned it was bare bulb, forgot to mention though that both were used with frosted domes
- no reflector at all
- distance to object 2m | 6 ft
- Sekonic 758 light meter

This was a crude test and since we always want to reproduce test results, we will do more testing to actually show the precise recorded readings later.

Apr 20, 2013 at 03:10 PM

John Skinner
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #12 · Einstein 640 vs Profoto D1 comparison by Kern-Photo

I own the 8a airs and the E640s.. They are different lights for different reasons. The 8as' collect a lot of dust here. The E640s' get a work out. Just easier to use and maintain and I don't feel like I'm taking a newborn outside near electrical cords and water.

This was a weird comparison test anyway (to me) they are different systems for different reasons.

Apr 21, 2013 at 06:22 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Lighting & Studio Techniques \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end