Of course they're gonna tell you that. They want to sell you two more $250 PX's. :-) PW would probably say the same if you asked about splitting a Plus II cable.
LesMizzell wrote:
There's a thread over on the Strobist forum with some test and numbers
I'm getting about 1/2 stop more than these numbers. But it's a good, well performed test. Also, the "hotspot mentioned is the actual beam spread - the PLM should be back further for full body work. Or, defocusing about 1/2f will widen the pattern and make the "hotspot" much larger.
I would still like to see a side by side comparison of properly mounted 86" PLM vs one of the high end paras. I'm not afraid to see this at all. Test shots should include the WS used, distance, etc, and both flash units should use the same WS and position, and be presented without exposure adjustment. Catchlights should be included. Everyone here says the paras are so great, but where are the pix to support this?
bacilonur wrote:
Of course they're gonna tell you that. They want to sell you two more $250 PX's. :-) PW would probably say the same if you asked about splitting a Plus II cable.
$5 could set you up for 3 flashes, easy: http://trinorthlighting.com/Store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=80
Works fine for triggering, but not for controlling TTL. You can't control three TTL lights over the same radio link with the same input into the controller; they're just not designed for that.
Paul Buff wrote:
I would still like to see a side by side comparison of properly mounted 86" PLM vs one of the high end paras. I'm not afraid to see this at all. Test shots should include the WS used, distance, etc, and both flash units should use the same WS and position, and be presented without exposure adjustment. Catchlights should be included. Everyone here says the paras are so great, but where are the pix to support this?
It's not a photographic example, but it's at least something to test against / compare with for the very high end versions. Briese
Sean Baker wrote:
Works fine for triggering, but not for controlling TTL. You can't control three TTL lights over the same radio link with the same input into the controller; they're just not designed for that.
False. RPs are still "dumb" TTL relays. It transmits the light pulses from the commander verbatim to each unit, it doesn't split them based on the channel or group. So even if you have three different flashes all in an array using just a single PX/P1 with each one in a different group, they'd still all be triggered properly because each transmission from a Canon or Nikon commander includes the complete set of instructions for each channel/group.
bacilonur wrote:
False. RPs are still "dumb" TTL relays. It transmits the light pulses from the commander verbatim to each unit, it doesn't split them based on the channel or group. So even if you have three different flashes all in an array using just a single PX/P1 with each one in a different group, they'd still all be triggered properly because each transmission from a Canon or Nikon commander includes the complete set of instructions for each channel/group.
Obviously that won't work for the latest PWs.
So while operating in IR-TTL, the flash never sends data back to the camera? I can see how it would work in that case, but it's been my understanding that there was cross-communication to indicate recharge / recycle / confirmation / etc.?
From all the documentation I've read on Canon's and Nikon's system, it's all one way.
It makes sense because if there were signals going back to the camera, you'd start having serious delays as soon as you started using more than 3 or 4 flashes if each one had to wait its turn before talking back to the camera after receiving its instructions. There's already a noticeable delay when using e-ttl/i-ttl instead of a PW. And on top of that, you'd be wasting precious flash juice while talking back to the camera.
The only units AFAIK that offer a two-way handshake are the PW Multis, which can confirm that they did fire. IDK if the latest PWs have that in their spec somewhere.
bobbyz wrote:
Looking forward to it. Would be nice for my outdoor use.
Should be good for outdoor group and fashion shots. Most softboxes are in the f8 range at this power, but wider angle. If you need wider angle, put the sock on - you'll still get around f11.
Paul Buff wrote:
I'm getting about 1/2 stop more than these numbers. But it's a good, well performed test. Also, the "hotspot mentioned is the actual beam spread - the PLM should be back further for full body work. Or, defocusing about 1/2f will widen the pattern and make the "hotspot" much larger.
Those are pretty impressive numbers...f16 at 25 feet with a WL X3200? Yowza. That's what I was looking to hear...
Paul Buff wrote:
Off topic, the 22R High Output is in production and I am thrilled with the results - be posting or linking these too.
Paul .. how different is this from the one currently being sold on the site besides having high output? i was planning to get one but if this is being released soon, i might just wait
Sean Baker wrote:
It's not a photographic example, but it's at least something to test against / compare with for the very high end versions. Briese
At a quick glance it looks to me like the PLM is between the "Spot" and "Medium" positions in it's maximum focus, but somewhat more efficient. In the maximum usable defocus position, the PLM looks like it is almost as wide and even as the "Flood position, but 1.5f more efficient. Note in the Briese drawings, a large portion of the light from the tube fails to strike the parabola (about 50% in Flood position and is lost as unfocused spill. In the PLM, all of the light from the tube strikes the parabola and is focused, thus the efficiency increase and lack of spill.
As for "picture quality", I se no reason to expect and significant difference. Testers will tell the story.
Certainly, the Briese is more of a "precision product" in construction. But I'll argue the PLM 86 will be a whole lot easier to set up, use and pay for. But, of course, I'm biased, though I don't think unfairly so.
teh_rebel wrote:
Paul .. how different is this from the one currently being sold on the site besides having high output? i was planning to get one but if this is being released soon, i might just wait
There are 200 ready to ship from China and 4000 on order. Should have them in around 10-12 days unless we have customs problems. I shouldn't say this, but even if the price were equal I would definitely buy the new version. With the sock it's basically the same, but better evenness and output. Without the sock it's a whole different creature with many new uses - even as a sports light. Also, the direct light shield is removable and adjustable. As I said, pix soon.
Paul Buff wrote:
There are 200 ready to ship from China and 4000 on order. Should have them in around 10-12 days unless we have customs problems. I shouldn't say this, but even if the price were equal I would definitely buy the new version. With the sock it's basically the same, but better evenness and output. Without the sock it's a whole different creature with many new uses - even as a sports light. Also, the direct light shield is removable and adjustable. As I said, pix soon.
very nice, Im intrigued. Will it have teh same overall shape or did you add steps in it similar to the MOLA
There were some example shots of it a while back, it was flatter than the current design with the sides jutting out like huge grid attachment lips, definitely nothing like a mola. That's a good thing, you can already get a $120 mola ripoff, ie Speedo.
Brent Ward wrote:
But does efficiency come at the cost of light quality? I'm asking since the samples being provided are no where near the other parabolic samples I've seen.
Brent, can you post a link to these parabolic samples so we have a benchmark which to compare?
He uses one a lot. Only one I know of off the top of my head. I think the main difference between this and other Para's is that the other para's are focusable. Unless this one is as well and I just over looked that feature.
