fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Lighting & Studio Techniques | Join Upload & Sell

3 end

Archive 2008 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

Paul Buff
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

Those ratings would make the D-Lite 4 about a D700. Plus we don't really use these ratings to speak of anymore - haven't for years. Read the lit or website - it's all spelled out very clearly.

One man's "inferior" is another mans "superior". Spend your money - buy what you like best.

Edited on Mar 25, 2008 at 10:01 AM

Mar 25, 2008 at 10:00 AM

Carmen Miranda
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

pchaplo wrote:
inferior strobes ...

For the record, I don't believe AB's are "inferior strobes". However, I just don't understand the need to overstate, overrate or over hype them in order to sell them. Paul is quite successful and he sells a lot of strobes because his products perform, because they are a good value and because his customers are satisfied with his product and excellent service. For this he should certainly be commended.

The fact that he doesn't make inferior products, doesn't mean I would expect him to laud the benefits of other products or point out any weaknesses in his own either. His job is to present the positive attributes of his products, not the weaknesses. And a very good job he does in this respect. King Luap is his own best advocate. Keep on truckin', Paul.

And good luck too.

Speedotron Force 10's ...football helmet with a strobe inside

Funny and true.

Edited on Mar 25, 2008 at 11:04 AM

Mar 25, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Jayem2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

pchaplo wrote:

Elinchrom is so much better than those inferior strobes ...if you can swing Elinchrom just do it. Dont waste your money.

Paul,

Really no point to put down other brands as the way you've put it. It's better to have some constructive discussion. You like Lexus, and a low TOYOTA will do for me for now. Everyone have their own needs...

Edited on Mar 25, 2008 at 02:53 PM

Mar 25, 2008 at 02:35 PM

k7xd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

pchaplo wrote:
. Dont waste your money.

Paul

I don't really see AB's as a waste of money .
They are a good value with high resale for someone who is starting out lighting.
I have recommended them to several people.
Just because they are not right for you or me does not
invalidate the market they are aimed at.
Competition is good for the industry as a whole.
Mr. Buff providing a product at the price point of AB's raises the bar to other
manufactures to be innovative and competive.

.

Mar 25, 2008 at 07:29 PM

Paul Buff
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

ABs came out in 2001 and quickly dominated the US market while creating a new market segment. D Lites came out six years later to compete. They have some improvements as one would expect, and some degraded points IMHO.

White Lightning Ultra came out in 1986 as a unique new design of my doing and met tremendous acceptance. Five to fifteen years later came similar designs from Hensel, Bron Visatec, Elinchrom, Photogenic, Norman, Speedotron and a bunch of Asian versions. Some have improvements or added features, some are miserable, most are way more expensive and a few Chinese ones are a bit cheaper.

The next round begins in about six months.

We don't make inferior lights - we create and lead. Innovating and capturing the majority of the market at the same time isn't an easy task for those who have tried it. There are equal and technically superior lights on the market, at a price, but we still have the lion's share of the market. This doesn't happen by chance or through advertising gimmicks. It requires customer satisfaction and word of mouth, in addition to a lot of hard work by my staff.

Edited on Mar 25, 2008 at 08:35 PM

Mar 25, 2008 at 08:33 PM

khguitar098
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

I just started using the old ultra 1800's i picked up second hand. LOVE LOVE LOVE THEM. Great value! Super powerful which is very essential as i like to shoot with plenty of sunlight out balancing the shots out with these bad boys through large light modifiers. While I do hope to pick up a profoto or elinchrom system (as I need faster recycle time) These more then get me by and have been giving me solid results.

Mar 25, 2008 at 09:10 PM

sivrajbm
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

King Luap rules all others drool...

Mar 25, 2008 at 09:34 PM

jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

OK, I'm a Profoto drooler...

Can't say I'm really getting the "effective WS" stuff.. I was told it is, or it isn't, and the rest is just marketing hooey...

So what's the story.....

Mar 26, 2008 at 08:54 AM

Carmen Miranda
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

jamesf99 wrote:
OK, I'm a Profoto drooler...

Can't say I'm really getting the "effective WS" stuff.. I was told it is, or it isn't, and the rest is just marketing hooey...

So what's the story.....

From Paul Buffs site:

"Effective Wattseconds: This terminology was originally used in 1985 by Inverse Square Systems in conjunction with their "Stroblox" series of high-efficiency self-contained flash units. The term was created because most manufacturers of flash equipment (as well as the press) insisted on the incorrect use of the term "wattsecond" as a definition of light output (in such wrong statements as "This system puts out 800ws of light"). Since the Stroblox system produced on the order of twice the amount of light per wattsecond as did the average "box-and-cable" system at the time, Inverse Square Systems chose to employ the rating "2400 effective wattseconds" as a means of saying "our system puts out an amount of light equal to the average 2400ws system,� even though the actual stored energy of the Stroblox 2400 was only 1200 joules or wattseconds. Indeed, this terminology gave the user a more clear idea of what to expect from the unit than he would have gotten had they simply stated that it was a 1200ws system. We publish wattseconds, effective wattseconds, and Lumenseconds for our flash units, with Lumenseconds being the most valuable method of power comparison."

http://tmrdesign.com/blog/images/pop_tests/out.jpg

You may notice from the chart that the monolights listed have a higher light output per wattsecond rating than the pack systems listed. This because the self contained monolight have a higher inherent efficiency than pack systems. So this rating was a way of "leveling the playing field" or showing that that monolights could put out comparable amount of light even with a lower true watt/second rating, which is merely a storage capacity value, not a light output value. It's like saying, my light only has 320 true watt/seconds but it will put out the same light as your 800 w/s pack. As an example, note the Elinchrom 400BX is 1/6th the wattseconds of the Acute2 2400, but puts out almost 1/2 the light output, with a difference of only 1.2 stops.

Paul may have felt that his monolights were competeing in a watt second race with pack systems back in 1985, but today it is a pretty moot point as monolights have come into their own right. Most of the other monolight manufacturers reject this rating as irrelevant and confusing. It has been difficult for Paul to distance himself from this rating since the model numbers of his units imply the "effective watt second" rating.

Good luck,

Paul should be along shortly.

Mar 26, 2008 at 10:41 AM

kkertz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

Carmen, do you believe a D-Lite 2 puts out the same amount of light as an AB800? If so, are you saying that an AB800 is only 200 watt seconds, not 320... or that a D-Lite 2 is 320 not 200?

Kevin

Mar 26, 2008 at 11:48 AM

Paul Buff
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

This is correct. The effective WS thing and the WL Ultra introduction caused the whole industry to improve their efficiency and function, and to drastically lower their prices, and build better products.

Were it not for WL Ultra you may still be buying versions of the old Bowens B800 - a 300 actual WS monoflash with small variation range and the size of a breadbox, costing around $1200 in the 1980's.

There remain efficiency differences between even monolights. The information published here does nothing but confuse people in this regard because the tests don't equalize beam patterns. This is absolutely necessary to make true comparisons of actual light output.

For example, the chart implies a Dynatite 2000 (which I measure as actually about 1850 real WS) puts out almost twice the power of a Profoto 2400WS. This is just not true, nor is the implication that a D-lite 2 is comapable to an AB800. This is called specsmanship - often used by politicians to make a false point with improperly presented charts and statistics.

These measurements are, quite simple, flawed. Shades of Rodney Dangerfield and now Jack Bower.

Mar 26, 2008 at 11:50 AM

butchM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

I'm sorry, but all this fretting over Paul Buffs terminology seems rather pointless.

I purchased two pairs of AB's (2-1600s & 2-800s)a little over 5 years ago. I was opening my studio and needed mono lights that could work as well on location without much hassle. At the time the ABs were the best bang for the buck. I have used them almost daily since I purchased them without any problems. I use them for from portraiture to lighting HS and college gyms for volleyball, basketball and wrestling. The only negative I have is too much power in some instances when working with a SB close in to the subject and trying to control for a shallow DOF.

I fully intended on upgrading to "pro" units in a very short term. I have yet to do so. Could I have more power, better controls, etc., etc, from another brand? Probably. Quite simply I don't need to upgrade, the ABs just flat out perform. I have never experienced the short falls that many who have never used the equipment are certain are prevalent in AB units. I mean they must be junk, look at the funky label and the price! Right?

I have had the opportunity to work with several brands and types of studio flash systems over the years and some I really enjoyed working with and wouldn't mind having in my posession. The ABs are doing just fine for me and I see no reason to make a move to another brand when I am getting such great service from what I already have.

I don't care what numbers you label them with ... it doesn't take away from their ability to do the job and all this arguing and wringing of hands over terminolgy can't change that.

(Let's see if it takes more than 10 sec. for someone to accuse me of low standards. Which is usually par for such discussions)

Mar 26, 2008 at 12:30 PM

jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

Thanks guys, although I must be dumb because I still don't know what I really have vis-a-vis the other products out there. I am more than willing to admit my ignorance on these issues as I'm a victim of doing it the way I've always done it. If it works, it's OK.

OK, so are we saying that Profoto, took me, and many others, to the cleaners? Are the other high end mfgs doing the same? I can find no mention of "effective WS" on the profoto site (for Acute2 or D4), nor did anyone at Calumet, the MAC (profoto) reps I spoke to, Midwest Photo, et. al, ever suggest that there was another measurement for power output. Nor have the other photographers I've worked with. If there is no consistent, and meaningful, measurement process/methodology and no single criterion or specific criteria for judging apples and apples, we're all just wasting our time here.

Regarding specsmanship, it's a long practiced marketing gimmick. The idea, used by almost every mfg of anything, is to identify the competitive wins when/where possible and talk up those points while simultaneously doing their best to gloss over, obfuscate, confuse, and ridicule those points where their products don't look as good... It's a win-win! The customer "thinks" they're getting something good, and the mfg can point to the literature and say "aren't we great"!

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics... S. Clemens

Don't believe everything you think... Anonymous...

Edited on Mar 26, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Mar 26, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Carmen Miranda
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

kkertz wrote:
Carmen, do you believe a D-Lite 2 puts out the same amount of light as an AB800?
Kevin,

I wouldn't have any way of knowing without doing the test myself.

If so, are you saying that an AB800 is only 200 watt seconds, not 320... or that a D-Lite 2 is 320 not 200?

Watt seconds is not a measurement of light output, but of energy stored and released from the capacitors. I don't have any reason to question manufacturers true watt second ratings. Watt seconds may may be a "relative" guide to output but it is certainly not an "accurate" indicator of output or consistency, as the test reveals.

Watt seconds aside, light output and consistency is testable and verifiable and I certainly appreciate the time, energy and discipline it took for someone to do it themselves and share it with us. Just like you did with your wonderful studio set up guide. Thanks again.

I also find the test results very interesting for the following reasons:

1. The test clearly points out that specs don't always tell the complete story. Something Paul has repeatedly pointed out and attempted to address over the years.

2. Just as these same type of tests, done years ago, showed that Paul's Little David monolights could go up right up against the monster Goliath packs, so I find it amuzing that the D-Lite 2, the runt of the litter in this test, came out so remarkably well.

And as one might expect, this does not sit well with some, just as Paul's products did not "sit well" with the established industry years ago. The advancements and innovations we are seeing in lighting today, such as digital control, integrated reflectors, higher efficiency and more accurate/ consistent performance, are clearly disrupting the status quo. Call it turnabout or ironic, but I personally don't see this as a bad thing. It will go either one of two ways:

1. Either manfacturer's will dismiss tests like this and do nothing, as the Goliaths did with Paul.
Which I think would be mistake, just as it was for those who did not take PB seriously years ago. Just look where PB is today and where those big names of yesteryear are now.

2. Or "leading manufacturers" will recognize that others are out there raising the bar and they'll quit sitting back on their laurels whining and get back to the business of improvement and innovation to lead again.

As far as the comment "getting taken to the cleaners", I do not subscribe to that whatsoever. Nobody is making a inferior product here, we're simply talking about industry leadership and best of breed. At a certain point you have to get beyond testing and comparing and get down to the business the products were made for, which is making pictures. Today there is little or no excuse to blame equipment for the ability to produce a quality photographic image. People need to get real; get their heads out of the catalogs and behind the viewfinder if they truly want to get their moneys worth.

It would be nice if everybody was as content with their equipment as I am with mine, but that doesn't mean what I own is best or right for everyone. I've gone through alot of gear to get it where I want it now. I think everyone's got their own path and need to discover these things for themselves. Do I get better results with the gear I own today than I did before? Maybe, but I can't attribute it entirely to the equipment, even though I do enjoy using it more.
Personally I'd be happy and proud to own anyone of those products listed in the test. Certainly I don't see how any would hold me back creatively.

There is a plethora of good product available today and hopefully more and better yet to come.

Good luck.

Edited by Carmen Miranda on Mar 26, 2008 at 12:26 PM GMT

Edited on Mar 26, 2008 at 03:26 PM

Mar 26, 2008 at 02:04 PM

Paul Buff
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

James,

I don't think you were taken to the cleaners by Profoto. Rather, some were by the lack of validity in the measurements in this thread.

As for the D-Lite "coming out so well" if the test were conducted properly it would still come out OK, but not superior in efficiency and light output as these skewed tests imply.

Mar 26, 2008 at 03:26 PM

khguitar098
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

Quick Question Paul If you happen to check the board. I have several white lightning ultra 1800's...and I absolutely love them...most of the time I use just one though on location mixed with light.

I need something that recycles more quickly and am really considering the zues.

I currently have a 1200 watt pure sine wave inverter with a couple 18ah battery's for location work to use with the ultras.

Will the recycle time of the zues 1200 watt pack with one head recycle as quickly as if it were plugged into the wall?

so 1.2 seconds at 1,250 Ws?

1.2 seconds would be killer out on the field. 3 seconds of the ultra is killing me, although it gets the job done.

Mar 26, 2008 at 03:32 PM

kkertz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

Carmen, I tested (4) AB800's yesterday warmed up for 10 minutes like the test in the chart. I placed a light stand 6 feet from the tube as a marker and set my L358 (the only meter I have) to ISO200, 125th/sec. Here's what I measured from all four...

AB800
f/22 at 6 feet (bare)
f/29 at 6 feet (7" new reflector)
f/36 at 6 feet (7" old reflector)

Please note that the f/22 seems to be just that, exactly f/22. If I move the light meter an inch back (6 feet, 1 inch) it registers f/20.

Maybe someone else can test too, but my meter tells me the chart posted by Carmen is inaccurate. So, if my meter is correct, I don't see anything productive making judgments or even discussing for that matter a flawed chart. But what the hell do I know... I happily and professionally use gear that FM members like Paul Chaplo kindly point out as "inferior"

Kevin

Mar 26, 2008 at 03:54 PM

Carmen Miranda
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

kkertz wrote:
Maybe someone else can test too, but my meter tells me the chart posted by Carmen is inaccurate.

Just for clarification it is not my test, but one that was posted earlier:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=469075

You'd really have to test each light with the same meter to make the comparison. I may test some of these units myself just to see if they they line up.

In any event, I don't think that Paul was disputing the fact that the Elinchrom are generally more efficient do to their internal reflector, which is a nice feature and something any manufacture could design into their product. I think he was taking exception to the result showing that the D-Lite 2's so close in output as the AB800.
Nor was he disputing the flash consistency results, saying only that his modeling lights were more consistent than the others.

Paul makes a nice light, but what's wrong with recognizing that there is always room for improvement and give credit where credit is due.?

I guess I should have known better than to throw rocks at a bee hive. I thought I learned that lesson when I was a kid.

Edited on Mar 26, 2008 at 04:35 PM

Mar 26, 2008 at 04:35 PM

kkertz
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

Carmen, first of all, I'm not here to defend Paul or what angle he's disputing. Yesterday, when I looked at the chart that you linked to, I thought the AB800 was about a stop off. I know what I've metered in the past with a reflector at about that distance... so that's why I tested it. My measurement show it's off by a stop.

I agree the most accurate test would be to use the same meter to make all comparisons. But I can't do that.
No beehive here Carmen... just interested in facts. If anyone else decides to do a test, we'll find out rather quickly if I'm off or he's off. No big deal to me... I really don't care. If my meter is off by a stop, that would be nice to know... but I don't think this is the case. No harm in getting the facts straight...

Kevin

Mar 26, 2008 at 05:14 PM

jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · ABs B1600 vs Elinchrom D-light 4

Carmen Miranda wrote:
As far as the comment "getting taken to the cleaners", I do not subscribe to that whatsoever. Nobody is making a inferior product here, we're simply talking about industry leadership and best of breed. At a certain point you have to get beyond testing and comparing and get down to the business the products were made for, which is making pictures. Today there is little or no excuse to blame equipment for the ability to produce a quality photographic image. People need to get real; get their heads out of the catalogs and behind the viewfinder if they truly...Show more →

Thanks Carmen,

Regarding my "cleaners" comment, it was tongue in cheek but apparently not read that way. My mistake for not making it clear.

Do I think Profoto literally "took me to the cleaners" since I purchased expensive equipment and I could have spent less? Absolutely not. I wouldn't give up my gear for anything at this point as it just works. I use what works (see previous comments). When my clients expect me to shoot something, I know I can because my gear performs as expected. I have no regrets, and if I was going to buy new equipment today I'd probably be right back buying more Profoto....

There still needs to be measurement consistency though. No one can make an informed or educated decision when there is no commonality among the testing methodologies and reporting procedures. Like vs. like is all that will ever provide meaningful data.

my recognition of what I have and the obvious quality aside, I'd like to learn more about current lighting developments and i mean no disrespect to anyone, but this initial test seems like the controls (as in scientific controls) were not established or managed well. Still it's a discussion point and we can only hope someone does it again with thorough management this time.

Edited by jamesf99 on Mar 26, 2008 at 05:44 PM GMT

Edited on Mar 26, 2008 at 05:44 PM

Mar 26, 2008 at 05:42 PM

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