But from my reading it sounded like they had issues with the power supply design in the ABMax and ended up re-doing it and are releasing it as Einstein instead of ABMax.
I designed the Einstein. A consultant designed the AB Max power supply, wasted a lot of our time (and yours) and failed. I rejected the design.
CreV wrote:
Just wondering about the 16A peak and 5A recharge current.
16A is reached when the unit is turned on and between each full power flash it uses 5A?
Will the flashunit overheat if I tape over the ventholes on the top to prevent snow from falling into the unit?
What's the t.1 at 500w?
Will there be an european distributor? Or did you ditch the idea since the swiss company didn't come through?
The current draw over the 1.7 second recycle period starts at 16A and tapers down to about 5A at the end of the recycle period. This is similar to most lights in this power range and cycle time,
Between shots the power draw is on the order of 10 watts - about 1/10 amp. (Assuming the modeling lamp if off.)
You could cover the top vents in the snow OK. Most of the airflow is through the bottom vents and out the front.
Don't have exact data about t.1 at 500WS in my head at this point. Probably on the order of 1/1000.
We have no European agent in sight at this point. Global regulations, taxes and rules are making it increasingly for a company like ours to even offer our products in Europe.
CreV wrote:
Just wondering about the 16A peak and 5A recharge current.
16A is reached when the unit is turned on and between each full power flash it uses 5A?
Peak draw for electronic flash units usually lasts just a few milliseconds after the flash discharges and the capacitors start to recharge.
Will the flashunit overheat if I tape over the ventholes on the top to prevent snow from falling into the unit?
I think a snow roof is a good idea but I'd definitely leave some breathing room around the unit for ventilation.
What's the t.1 at 500w?
Since Mr. Buff says that at any output level below full ( 640 w-s) the t0.1 in color constant mode is 1/675th second, my best guess is that if this is the case it will be somewhere between 1/800 and 1/1000th.
I'm just curious as to why there are never any actual photos of the lights, remotes, etc? We only see these "drawings". Really, I'm just curious. I suppose I could send a message to PCB company, but I'm just curious while reading this thread....and every time I see these drawings
I think it is just the way things are manufactured these days. Too expensive or not practical to do a "one-off" and the prototypes are likely not photo quality. That's my guess. :-)
That's about right. I can't take a photo of a product until it is ready to ship. Please notice the CAD renderings of the never released AB Max to the actual photos that were posted once all the part were in and the unit fully assembled. The CADs are essentially identical and accurately represent the final product. I don't release CAD drawings of concepts. In one case I was pushed into releasing conceptual CAD drawings by a pushy magazine editorial person and have regretted it ever since.
rickboden wrote:
I think it is just the way things are manufactured these days. Too expensive or not practical to do a "one-off" and the prototypes are likely not photo quality. That's my guess. :-)
Paul Buff wrote:
That's about right. I can't take a photo of a product until it is ready to ship. Please notice the CAD renderings of the never released AB Max to the actual photos that were posted once all the part were in and the unit fully assembled. The CADs are essentially identical and accurately represent the final product. I don't release CAD drawings of concepts. In one case I was pushed into releasing conceptual CAD drawings by a pushy magazine editorial person and have regretted it ever since.
Ok, I get those points and understand the cost factor for a one off. However, aren't we talkin about a shell, as in model, or plastic mold? Though others surely may not believe it matters, I would think a photo is worth.....well....a thousand words so to speak. This comes to my mind mostly now because of the decision to not release the ABMax. What does that have to do with anything? Probably nothing, but I suppose "evidence" of a product is hopeful/helpful....though I'm sure your company may not be too worried about that.
Here in Metro Detroit we have the Auto Show and people just love and talk about the concept cars that are actual molds of the cars. More than plastic and less than functional, but surely better than CAD.
I'm not knocking the CADs because they look okay, but I personally like to see a photo.That's why I always order the B&H Catalog to help my decisions. For all I know that photo of the product could be completely empty in terms of the electronics inside.
We are talking about a $20,000 injection mold. It has been in progress for three weeks and first molded samples are due in a couple of weeks. Then they must be checked for accuracy and fit, and modified is necessary. Hey, I would prefer a picture too, but I can't pull rabbits of of hats. A one off prototype is about $1200 and won't look as good as the CAD drawings and isn't strong enough to actually test - so what's the point . . . so I could fool someone into thinking it was the real thing?
Ok, I get those points and understand the cost factor for a one off. However, aren't we talkin about a shell, as in model, or plastic mold? Though others surely may not believe it matters, I would think a photo is worth.....well....a thousand words so to speak. This comes to my mind mostly now because of the decision to not release the ABMax. What does that have to do with anything? Probably nothing, but I suppose "evidence" of a product is hopeful/helpful....though I'm sure your company may not be too worried about that.
Here in Metro Detroit we have the Auto Show and people just love and talk about the concept cars that are actual molds of the cars. More than plastic and less than functional, but surely better than CAD.
I'm not knocking the CADs because they look okay, but I personally like to see a photo.That's why I always order the B&H Catalog to help my decisions. For all I know that photo of the product could be completely empty in terms of the electronics inside.
From Rob G's write up- The AB MAX's umbrella mount was planned to run along the bottom of the flash. The Einstein's umbrella mount is along the top. The reason for the change is straightforward: Buff discovered that the slight downward bend of a mounted umbrella would put the flash tube closer to the ideal position within that umbrella if the mount was on the top rather than the bottom.
Actually it was a poster on this forum who pointed this out, and initially Paul poo-pooed him.
Nice to see Paul has done his own tests and now taken this on board.
Wouldn't top cooling slots mean rain becomes a huge danger, or is there an internal waterproof envelope that water can drip through (ie only heatsinks exposed) without touching anything nasty?
shoebox9 wrote:
Wouldn't top cooling slots mean rain becomes a huge danger, or is there an internal waterproof envelope that water can drip through (ie only heatsinks exposed) without touching anything nasty?
Have you looked a an Elinchrom RX600 or similar studio flash? The rain falls on the 600 Volt flashtubes that your fingers can touch as well as through the bigger top air vents. To say nothing of the 475°F touchable modeling lamp and 15,000 Volt trigger wire. So I guess they are an even huger danger and should be recalled immediately?
We make studio flash, not rain gear. Next, you'll no doubt want waterproof everything so you can take them Scuba diving.
If you are taking any electronic flash systems out to shoot in the splashing water, rain or snow you would be foolish not to be making damn sure on your own that they are protected from precipitation no matter what any manufacturer says.
Based on these early specs, from a light power output perspective, is the Einstein 640 then equivalent to the AlienBees B1600? (which itself is rated at 640 True Ws)
I recently bought the B1600, and would like to be able to reduce the output beyond the 1/32 without losing the high-end power as well. If so, it sounds like the Einstein would be a good addition for me?
chris.dg wrote:
Based on these early specs, from a light power output perspective, is the Einstein 640 then equivalent to the AlienBees B1600? (which itself is rated at 640 True Ws)
I recently bought the B1600, and would like to be able to reduce the output beyond the 1/32 without losing the high-end power as well. If so, it sounds like the Einstein would be a good addition for me?
This is correct. But unlike the AB1600, RX600 and similar, Einstein 640 can be dialed down seamlessly to 1/256 power (2.5WS) with no color shift and with very fast and clean flash durations.
Many posters on all forums like to think AB has a greater color shift VS power setting than more expensive lights. This is simply not true except in the case of very expensive IGBT controlled packs such as Bron Grafit and a few others, or units such as WLX1600/3200 and, I believe, some Hensel products that use capacitor switching.
Garden variety power packs such as Speedo, Dynalite, Zeus, etc. usually combine capacitor switching and voltage control. Capacitor switching doesn't affect color balance but voltage control does.
All monolights that depend solely on voltage control (the vast majority fall into this category) exhibit the same color VS power curve as AB . . . about 70°K warming per f stop of power reduction. Models that only allow 3 f stops of power reduction obviously shift color less (210°K) than units that allow 5f power reduction and can shift color by 5 x 70° = 350°K. But this is a false argument because you simply have less power range to work with.
Paul Buff wrote:
Have you looked a an Elinchrom RX600 or similar studio flash? The rain falls on the 600 Volt flashtubes that your fingers can touch as well as through the bigger top air vents. To say nothing of the 475°F touchable modeling lamp and 15,000 Volt trigger wire. So I guess they are an even huger danger and should be recalled immediately?
We make studio flash, not rain gear. Next, you'll no doubt want waterproof everything so you can take them Scuba diving.
The Ranger RX is claimed as splash proof, and I had mine out in pouring rain just last week. It worked flawlessly. (The thing that eventually stopped working was the hotshoe/Skyport connection, which I could have solved with a PC cord and kept shooting if needed.) The flash tube stayed dry because it was inside a s/box.
Creating a "must not be used if a single drop of rain may fall" system is fine, as long as you tell us what it is. Creating a non-waterproof, but light drizzle resistant design would be even better.
If the vast majority of the heat exits via the generous bottom vents that are mostly side sheilded by the stand system, then my question about the necessity of the top vent and resulting water entry seemed valid. You seemed 90% of the way to a light-rain resistant system...? Could the top vent be safely taped up?
We tell you it is a studio flash because that's what it is - just like essentially all other manufactures of studio flash. They are AC operated equipment that is not intended to be used in the rain.
The Ranger is not defined as a studio flash and is not AC operated and is designed to be used outdoors . If the top vents served no purpose they wouldn't be there, so I wouldn't really recommend taping them up. Our instructions warn against the hazards of using them in wet locations, still people use them around swimming pools and have even taken them in the water. Not a safe practice.
