http://www.kern-photo.com/index.php/2012/08/einstein-640-vs-profoto-d1-w-phaseone-iq-head-to-head/

In case if you did not read this blog already.

ravisrajan wrote:
http://www.kern-photo.com/index.php/2012/08/einstein-640-vs-profoto-d1-w-phaseone-iq-head-to-head/

In case if you are not read this blog already.

Thanks, for me the Einstein is a no brainer! Now I just need to order the dang things!

Kevin

No brainer or not, it would make sense to have lighting which suited the conditions you expected to use it for rather than compare two lights which fall far short of the purpose.

This for example.. "Power settings were set to full power. Camera settings during the day shots were at 1/1600 sec ranging from f/6.3 to f/8, ISO 50." Why would you use the Einstein at full power when its duration is 1/700s at full power.. thats half the light wasted in every condition you would consider wanting to use the power.

Similarly on the comparison test, 1/8 power.. why?
And the water test at full power and 1/1600s, again, why?

I've seen a few of these reports, or mentions recently with 1/1600s shutter speeds and Einsteins used at reduced power. Surely doing that defeats the object of having the power in the first place.. Does the Einstein work where 1/8 power = 80Ws?

Anybody have a scale of output and flash duration for the Einstein or any other lighting for that matter so that an output/benefit scale can be compared?

There must be a better solution than wasting half your output if using 1/1600s leaf shutters, having to do the maths of what output will work to best benefit where, would do my head in... Something like a Bowens 500 Pro Monolight at 1/2900s duration, or a Quadra and Action Head @ 1/2800s duration comes to mind as being useful , both for full output.

ukphotographer wrote:
Anybody have a scale of output and flash duration for the Einstein or any other lighting for that matter so that an output/benefit scale can be compared?


http://www.paulcbuff.com/e640.php - look under "Comparison Data"

sic0048 wrote:

http://www.paulcbuff.com/e640.php - look under "Comparison Data"

Thanks for that.. it does confirm that the Einstein would only be of any benefit at anything below 1/2 power at 1/1600s shutter speed.

Still.. a 2.6k or rough equivalent at 1/200s isn't to be sniffed at.. (I'd still be annoyed not to be able to use the full 640Ws at 1/1600s though).

The issue of duration becomes very important in this comparison as the author points out early on. It seems to me that as UKPhotographer points out the output is wasted if the duration exceeds the exposure time.
The chart referenced on the Buff site gives us an insight into the power at various durations.

The interesting thing is that it would seem that the Profoto would have a greater impact at full power with the Einstein having an increased advantage at lower power settings.

For me the advantage is that were I to enjoy a camera with 1/1600s leaf shutter I would be able to use the Einstein on battery power at lower output and have more battery life while still getting decent output. In addition I could buy another Einstein with the savings.

Let's face it: 1/1600s sync users are an absolute minority.

If you have 1/1600s sync why would you chose to compare two flash units which are just totally inappropriate?! There are more suitable lighting solutions as previously pointed out.

Bit of an odd comparison in some ways, in addition to comments noted:
No mention of profoto's easy worldwide rental availability in the 'risk' section
No mention of the air system for remote power control which is very capable
No mention of recycle or duty cycle
No shot to shot consistency comparison
He compared a 1000ws strobe with a 640ws one

Mark_L wrote:
No mention of profoto's easy worldwide rental availability in the 'risk' section


He did say this: "Sure rental houses standardize on Profoto, but I could easily own PCB gear for what it would cost to rent Profoto."

I'm not sure I agree that the flash durations were similar in the water shot too...the water droplets at the center top of the profoto shot look pretty blurry (the Einstein should be really slow at full power too but the droplets look less blurred). And IIRC, the D1 doesn't have the pre-flash ignition system (PIPE) that's supposed to make speeds sort of faster (Broncolor did a comparison a while back and found PIPE blurred compared to their IGBT systems...

ukphotographer wrote:
This for example.. "Power settings were set to full power. Camera settings during the day shots were at 1/1600 sec ranging from f/6.3 to f/8, ISO 50." Why would you use the Einstein at full power when its duration is 1/700s at full power.. thats half the light wasted in every condition you would consider wanting to use the power.


Where are you getting your data from?

According to this page:
http://www.paulcbuff.com/e640.php

t.1 duration is 1/588s (slower than what you state)
t.5 duration is 1/2000s (faster than what you state)

The Profoto D1 1000 Air is slower than the Einstein:
Flash Duration t 0.5 1/1800-1/700s (likely 1/1800s is the full power duration)
From: http://www.profoto.com/products/monolights/d1-1000-air

Mr. Kern doesn't seem to know how leaf shutters work. He says on the blog, "Leaf shutters trump this by using two shutter blades that pass quickly parallel to each other allowing just a sliver of light to reach the camera sensor." That's how a focal plane shutter works at high speeds, not a leaf shutter.

here another add from PCB comparing various lights with Einstein,

ravisrajan wrote: here another add from PCB comparing various lights with Einstein

Good ol' Paul; I love how he shows the results of the Einstein at 1/16 power, then competitors' lights at full power, and only at the end does he show the Einstein at full power (where it doesn't do as well as the Profoto did).

Why not show the other lights at 1/16th power, too?

That's what I was thinking Brian. How many of you would use a 640 watt strobe at 1/16 power much other than to shoot at larger apertures? I guess if you like to stop tennis balls or hummingbirds in the dark that's OK. But I can do that with an SB-910 and with high speed sync.

BrianO wrote:
ravisrajan wrote: here another add from PCB comparing various lights with Einstein

Good ol' Paul; I love how he shows the results of the Einstein at 1/16 power, then competitors' lights at full power, and only at the end does he show the Einstein at full power (where it doesn't do as well as the Profoto did).

Why not show the other lights at 1/16th power, too?


Correct me if i am wrong but most lights are fastest at full power so showing them at 1/16 would be worse. Speelights are faster at lower power and Einsteins work off of that principle. Most monolights do not.

pjbuehner wrote:
Correct me if i am wrong but most lights are fastest at full power so showing them at 1/16 would be worse. Speelights are faster at lower power and Einsteins work off of that principle. Most monolights do not.

Correct. There are plenty of things to find fault with in that ad (the nonexistent unit of "°K" for one), but the Horrible Overpriced Communist Euro Strobes should have their shortest flash duration at full power.

colinm wrote:

Correct. There are plenty of things to find fault with in that ad (the nonexistent unit of "°K" for one), but the Horrible Overpriced Communist Euro Strobes should have their shortest flash duration at full power.

What is a "Communist" strobe?

PeterBerressem wrote:
colinm wrote:

Correct. There are plenty of things to find fault with in that ad (the nonexistent unit of "°K" for one), but the Horrible Overpriced Communist Euro Strobes should have their shortest flash duration at full power.

What is a "Communist" strobe?
It is a very strange US invention.

Brian A

pjbuehner wrote: Correct me if i am wrong but most lights are fastest at full power so showing them at 1/16 would be worse.

So why doesn't he do that in his ad?

The point is that he doesn't compare apples to apples; he always slants his "scientific comparisons" to best show his products.