Paul Buff wrote:
This is a judgement call. The 1/13,000 t.1 comes at a cost of large color shift and possibly less consistency than 1/10,000. I will post some spinning wheel action stopping shot soon. Even at at 1/7000 it freezes like ice. That's equivalent to about 1/22.000 t.5.
Bron's scoro are 1/8000th T.1 and Profoto 8's are 1/12000th t.5 and are equal in duration. The faster the duration the closer the numbers get. I'm not sure how your getting 1/22,000th t.5...
1/22,000 is the t.5 time it would take from a non IGBT flash to get a 1/7000 t.1. But the IGBT controlled motion freezing is much better than equivalent non IGBT t.1.
The reason is, on a conventional system there is still 1/10 of the total power emitted after the t.1 one time. This is just under -3 f stops and goes on for a long time. Thus, bright objects can still show some blur that belies the stated t.1 time. On Einstein, there is nothing after the t.1 time so action freezing is much sharper. Ask Rob Galbraith about this - he's the preeminent expert.
The two systems you mention are IGBT controlled. I have no idea why Profoto would publish t.5 times on an IGBT system?? If I want to play that game Einstein would come out about 1/20,000 t.5 . . . or as high at 1/30,000 if I want to ignore solid performance in order to create a real fast number. Or I could change the fill pressure n the tubes and get it up to 1/50,000 at a cost of reliability. Would yawl rather see that number? Would it make you think my product suddenly became light years faster and better?
I have to disagree that 1/8000 t.1 and 1/12,000 are equal on IGBT systems. 1/8000 t.1, if you measure it and understand the technology, will come out abut 1/15,000 t.5.
BTW, you can't measure IGBT t.1 or t.5 times using the old methods. You must use true RMS integration of light VS time. I have developed test equipment to do just that and can guarantee and verify my numbers..
This is an opportunity for the industry to clarify this so users can compare and understand. I will do that . . . if others want to keep manipulating numbers . . . they'll be gone in 60 seconds.
I have published Lumenseconds for years while others keep talking about meaningless guide numbers and assigned new non-dictionary definitions of the word range and any number of other marketing hypes.
ishootsports3 wrote:
Very interested to hear user reports, perhaps i can be swayed from elinchrom 600(of some incarnation) i plan to purchase in the coming months
RX600 specs and performance are essentially identical to AB1600. They have better low end accuracy and repeatability due to the digital control. I have a couple of RX600s and do many careful comparison tests pretty regularly. They are good lights - I'm not knocking them.
Paul Buff wrote:
RX600 specs and performance are essentially identical to AB1600. They have better low end accuracy and repeatability due to the digital control. I have a couple of RX600s and do many careful comparison tests pretty regularly. They are good lights - I'm not knocking them.
I do not doubt the capability of the AB1600, the RX600 stand out to me due to the flash duration as i shoot a very large amount of sports
ishootsports3 wrote:
Very interested to hear user reports, perhaps i can be swayed from elinchrom 600(of some incarnation) i plan to purchase in the coming months
Just get the Eli 600's!!!
prints a little to small for me to read