I'm leaning more towards the ABs due to the fact that they are fan cooled and higher powered, but I like the controls on the D-light. What are your guys' personal opinions. I will be doing mostly location shooting and I am just starting with strobes.
Another question how is the ABs ringflash? (zeus ringflash?)
Why not go for the Xl1600. It gives 1600 and 400 in 1 light. I see that on other forum people say AB's output drifts (shot to shot) when used at lower power settings like 1/16 and 1/32. Having option to shoot both low and high with 1 light would be nice.
I just ordered a D-Light 4 because of it's dual voltage and controls. Since I'm in a tight space i figured 400 WS was more than enough for me at the moment.
But for the watts per $ crowd, the output chart reveals that the AB800 only puts out about as much light as a DLite 2 and is only half the power as the DLite 4 inside a softbox.
So, I guess that leaves me wondering.
Does that make the AB B800 800 effective watt seconds, as claimed, or 200 effective watt seconds, as compared to others in it's class?
Or, if we accept the "effective watt second" standard as defined by Paul Buff, does that make the D-Lite 400 a whopping 1600 effective watt second light?
Aside from that, the most interesting tidbit I saw in this whole test was the Photogenic reflector figures at 2.5 stops!!! Not exactly a spill kill reflector, exceeding ProFoto's zoom position 4! Do they come with a fresnel or what?
I believe there are factual errors on this comparison. In my very careful tests, using 80° reflectors on both D Lite 2 and AB400 (not 800) the 160WS AB400 produces 20% more light over the same angle of coverage as does the 200WS D Lite 2. Comparative actual shots and support information are at this link:
The referenced post looks suspiciously like an AB400 rather than the stated AB 800.
Carmen Miranda refers to output with softbox, but no such measurement is contained in the link. The tests with "reflector" are meaningless unless the reflectors produce the same lighting angle (as they do in my tests). Obviously some reflectors tested in the link are highly focused narrow beam reflectors. One reference say "*Reflector mounted at maximum zoom position"
Further, the link infers that a 2400WS Profoto without reflector produces only twice the power of a 400WS D Lite 4 without reflector. This is a literally incredible test result and raises questions about the legitimacy of the entire test series.
As to "Output without reflector" D Lite contains a partial reflector at all times and, unlike AB, is not a true bare bulb.
I suggest a proper conducted test, using diffused softbox, equalized reflector patterns, bounce tests or other test that truly determine the actual light output will show a 320WS AB800 to produce as much or more light than does a 400WS D-Lite 4.
Carmen Miranda wrote:
Actually, I believe I said "inside a softbox", which would be without a reflector.
Sorry for any confusion. (Even though I still am. )
Testing inside a softbox with diffuser is a valid comparative test. But no such test is indicated in the link.
The link refers to "without a reflector" which would be valid if the two units under comparison indeed each had no reflector. But this is not the case with D-Lite as there is always a reflector in place even with aux reflectors removed.
ABs are true bare bulb when used without aux reflector. There is some focusing present with D-Lite that is absent with AB. A comparison on this basis skews the result toward the unit that concentrates into some form of beam (D-Lite). This is the same situation (useless) you see with comparison to Profoto.
I own AB800s, an Elinchrom 400BX, 600RX, and now the DLite4s. I'm willing to run tests as well to verify the data initially run by TMR. What would be the ideal way to test these to make them truly valid?
I think the original test was primarily to determine consistency, which Paul does not seem to contest.
But for a better comparison of output it might be best to use the same exact modifier with each light, as Paul points out. I'd probably use the same small softbox (brand does not make any difference) with different speed rings and leave the other parameters the same. Be sure to use a digital light meter that reads in tenths.
I think the original test was primarily to determine consistency, which Paul does not seem to contest.
But for a better comparison of output it might be best to use the same exact modifier with each light, as Paul points out. I'd probably use the same small softbox (brand does not make any difference) with different speed rings and leave the other parameters the same. Be sure to use a digital light meter that reads in tenths.
Good luck.
This is correct. But the conclusion people drew, particularly in dpreview, is that 200WS D Lite produce more power than 320WS AB 800. This is factually incorrect and misleading. My tests indicate a 160WS AB400 puts out as much or more raw light than a 200WS D Lite 2.
PrintLabGuy wrote:
I own AB800s, an Elinchrom 400BX, 600RX, and now the DLite4s. I'm willing to run tests as well to verify the data initially run by TMR. What would be the ideal way to test these to make them truly valid?
My suggestion would be to put each light in a similar size softbox with the same interior treatment, with internal diffusers, (ideally the same softbox) and measure each at the same distance - like six feet from the surface.
This will equalize the beam patterns and tell you the actual amount of light emitted by each. A further test would be, in both cases, to put the flashmeter behind the softbox and meter the light bounced off the opposite wall as this further equalizes the beams.
I would also suggest metering the modeling lamp f-stop at each power increment to determine modeling accuracy vs flash. If you really want to see differences, use a variac to input varying powerline voltages from 105VAC to 125VAC at any power level and modeling setting and check the stability of flash and model vs powerline voltage.
Paul Buff wrote:
I would also suggest metering the modeling lamp f-stop at each power increment to determine modeling accuracy vs flash. If you really want to see differences, use a variac to input varying powerline voltages from 105VAC to 125VAC at any power level and modeling setting and check the stability of flash and model vs powerline voltage.
I could understand model light variations on analog controls.
For some reason I was thinking on digital controlled lights
the modeling lights would be voltage stabilized, not true?
The only times I've ever relied on proportionality of my modeling lights is if I want to use them as a constant light source or control ambient level for mood or pupil dilation. Digital LCD's have pretty much obviated the need to see ratios via a modeling light, which could never be relied upon anyway. Mine are usually off to reduce heat build up or on for focus or to direct.
Are you claiming that AB's have more accurate and consistent modeling lights?
The only times I've ever relied on proportionality of my modeling lights is if I want to use them as a constant light source or control ambient level for mood or pupil dilation. Digital LCD's have pretty much obviated the need to see ratios via a modeling light, which could never be relied upon anyway. Mine are usually off to reduce heat build up or on for focus or to direct.
Are you claiming that AB's have more accurate and consistent modeling lights?
Yes. AB/WL/Zeus modeling lamps are voltage regulated from 105VAC to 135VAC and track the flashpower within 1/4f. I know of no other flash system that has regulated modeling lamps, or that are as accurate.) Most use a phase controlled dimmer (like a household dimmer). We use an RMS detection/feedback circuit of my design that both regulates and yields highly accuarate tracking.
The D-Lite2 I tested had 6/10f error in tracking flash over much of the adjustment range and had a variation of well over 1f additional from 105V to 125VAC. See:
This is important to some and not important to others. If you use the modeling lamps to judge the light balance, as do many AB/WL users, it's an important parameter.
By the way and FYI, my Canon 400D has 400°K color shift from neutral near white to neutral near black when measured in RAW with MacBeth Colr/Grey card, and 300-400° white balance deviation from Gossen Color Meter Pro, which deviates 150°K from Minolta Color Meter III.
My Nikon D100 has less than 200° color shift over the grey scale and agrees with the Color Meters closely.
Today I opened the same RAW file in Bridge and in Capture One and found an 800°K difference in measured white point (from the same file).
So as long as your testing lights you might want to look into color meters, flash meters and cameras.
Or, if we accept the "effective watt second" standard as defined by Paul Buff, does that make the D-Lite 400 a whopping 1600 effective watt second light?
lol EXACTLY! u crack me up Carmen.
Elinchrom is so much better than those inferior strobes ...if you can swing Elinchrom just do it. Dont waste your money.
Also, consider Speedotron Force 10's - they are built like a tank! think football helmet with a strobe inside lol
)