RDKirk
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #20 · Alien Bee or White Lightning? | |
I think the OPs initial question was whether there was a difference between the CyberSyncs sold from the AB site and those sold from the WL site. The answer, given by Scott, is that the peripheral equipment from both sites is the same.
This thread also veered into the difference between Alien Bee and White Lightning flash units. This is my "Big Post of Differences."
The basic circuitry of the current WL and the AB is the same, the differences being primarily in physical and thermal robustness. The AB circuit is actually the "mother" design of the current WL circuitry.
The AB circuitry is on two boards relatively close together in the shell; the WL circuitry (same basic design) is spread across four boards in a larger shell. I speculate that makes it easier to cool.
The WL 1600 and 3200 units have a 1/4 power step down control. This enables them to be more consistent at very low power than the single-stage adjustment of the AB, according to my tests. However, both of them are well equal to the consistency you'll find in any other flash unit anywhere close to their price ranges with otherwise comparable specs. Don't expect more money to automatically buy better consistency. The WL 1600 and 3200 lights also go to a much lower power than the AB lights because of the 1/4 power button.
The AB has a 1/8-inch mono sync jack; the WL has a 1/4-inch stereo sync jack (it's really only two poles, but you need a stereo plug with both the barrel and the ring grounded to make the connection correctly).
The WL shell is solid aluminum while the AB shell is Lexan. That makes the WL physically tougher, but in practice, it actually takes quite a serious whack to break the Lexan--and I doubt the circuits of either can stand that many gees. It would probably make a difference under a PRESSURE situation, like boxes (or luggage) stacked on the lights. I'd expect the Lexan would eventually deflect enough to bend something inside, where the WL would resist the pressure.
The stand mount of the WL is cast and machined aluminum; the mount of the AB is polycarbonate. I have heard of people breaking the AB mount or pulling out the metal threads by dogging it down really hard, but I've never broken one.
The WL has a 250 watt modeling light; the AB now comes with a 150 watt halogen lamp. Paul has also said that a 250 volt bulb can be used on AlienBees IF it's used in an open-air situation, like an umbrella or very large softbox...but I'd be very wary of a small softbox. Paul says that the eventual damage of using a 250 watt bulb is to the bulb socket itself, not to the electronics.
The WL has a better thermally protective design that makes the difference. In practice, 150-watts is more than adequate for the kind of living room portraits the ABs are best suited for. If you're lighting larger sets or using larger modifiers, you want the WL modeling light power.
The WL has separate manual controls for the flash and modeling power while the AB has a single control for them both. The WL levers are directly parallel to each other, so it's just as easy to flick them both simultaneously with the same finger as it is to manipulate the single AB lever, which makes it all a matter of taste.
The "modern" style of low-to-mid-priced studio flash units is flat membrane buttons and LED power level displays, but I find these levers to have much better useability in the real world. Membrane buttons and LED displays require the user to have a direct view of the rear panel. In practice, the rear panel is often above eye level and pointing upwards, which would make it difficult to operate membrane buttons or see an LED display. The AB and WL controls are operable by feel even when 'way over your head (Bowens/Travelite is even a bit better--dials on the side).
The WL has a thermal-controlled fan--it comes on when necessary (which always tends to be "eventually" on a long job); the AB has a constant-on fan. The AB fan is a bit quieter and lower in pitch than the WL fan, but neither is objectionable--I have a laptop that has a louder fan.
The fingers of the WL reflector mount are cast and machined; the AB fingers are slightly less substantial stamped metal. The method of actuating the fingers is also mechanically more efficient on the WL than the AB (that is, has a greater mechanical advantage to stay clamped). Also, the WL reflector mount is screwed into the aluminum housing; the AB reflector mount is screwed into the Lexan.
The umbrella mount of the AB is a rather short tunnel through the Lexan with a simple screw to hold it; again, it looks weaker than I'd like to see, although I've never broken one. The WL, on the other hand, grasps the umbrella shaft in a long, long tube of cast aluminum with a beefy, confidence-inspiring holding clamp.
Those differences mean the WL can theoretically hold a far heavier light modifier than the AB. However, the AB mount is no wimp, and, again, it can hold just about anything you'd use for living-room portraiture.
The WL lights are heavier and longer than the AB lights--substantially so in the higher wattages.
The AB's Lexan shell and polycarbonate stand mount means it can't drain off static electricity as readily as the WL's aluminum shell and aluminum mount. Some people have reported that under very dry and stacticky conditions, they've gotten spurious flashes when they touched an AB after walking across a carpeted floor; this should not be a problem for the WL--the aluminum shell is directly grounded through the power cable.
All in all, I'd categorize the differences as being compact/lightweight versus tough/high endurance. If you work constantly on location (as I did for a good while), the compactness and light weight of the AB units is very important. If you carry, say, four or five lights on location, it's as little as half the weight with AB units. The low cost helps, too, because while ABs take a licking and still keep ticking, I would shed fewer tears if a truck backed over my ABs than my WLs.
In small-set situations like most portraits, the AB modeling lights are adequate. But if you're doing larger-set commercial work, if you need lights that can flash rapidly all day long, day in and day out week after week, need the best consistency at very low power, and weight isn't such a factor for you, then the White Lightning has advantages.
Either unit becomes positively glorious when combined with full remote control. I can't trumpet loudly enough about the utility of full wireless remote control of all functions, including modeling lights and power--you couldn't get remote control as effective as Paul Buff's old Radio Remote One ANY price.
I put that in past tense because sales of that model have ceased; Buff has announced a new, more effective system that will debut along with a new model of monolight he's dubbed "Einstein." They're scheduled to debut soon and they sound pretty exciting from the information that's been released on his forum. Fortunately the new remote control is supposed to provide as much and more capability with the old lights as the Radio Remote One ever did.
|
.
