Since we're now comfortably off topic, allow me to insert some data points. Today I metered the output of an Einstein and an Elinchrom 600RX, each with their manufacturer's nominally 7" and 8" reflectors (7" & 8-1/4" for the Eli, 7" & 8-1/2" for the Einstein). Meter (Minolta Flash Meter IV) was set to ISO 100 and placed on a light stand exactly 10-feet from each light's flashtube for the on-axis reading. The meter was moved 6-feet laterally for the off-axis readings.
Results shown in green represent the higher output while yellow denotes a tie. In no case did the 640WS Einstein meter higher than the 600WS Elinchrom. In only one case did it match the Elinchrom's output. In all other cases, output of the Einstein metered fractionally lower than the Elinchrom.
Let me get this straight.... You took the back plate off the housing and held your light meter on the back side of the slots and got a insignificant reading? I will use a example of placing a fine Gobo in front of any light source and argue that point with you. The same amount of light is going through those slots than is proportionally going anywhere else around where the flash tube is being projecting.
Below is a quote from Paul about the Einstein. Paul Buff wrote:
Cooling volume is about four times that of AB/WL. Yes, it's full of parts and is purposely very compact. The airflow design is highly evolved and has a very effective path through all components. Multiple heat sensors protect everything from overheat damage.
Again here is the warning published after the product is sold. Warning: Operating Einstein for long periods of time with the modeling lamp set to full 250W with the unit pointing at a down angle can cause excess heating and possible damage to the Einstein.
I know Paul has a lot of fans and in some respects I'm one of them. As for the turn this tread has taken.... People can form their own conclusions about who is talking "gibberish".
tetrode wrote:
Since we're now comfortably off topic, allow me to insert some data points. Today I metered the output of an Einstein and an Elinchrom 600RX, each with their manufacturer's nominally 7" and 8" reflectors (7" & 8-1/4" for the Eli, 7" & 8-1/2" for the Einstein). Meter (Minolta Flash Meter IV) was set to ISO 100 and placed on a light stand exactly 10-feet from each light's flashtube for the on-axis reading. The meter was moved 6-feet laterally for the off-axis readings.
Results shown in green represent the higher output while yellow denotes a tie. In no case did the 640WS Einstein meter higher than the 600WS Elinchrom. In only one case did it match the Elinchrom's output. In all other cases, output of the Einstein metered fractionally lower than the Elinchrom.
Nice work, Dave. This is the second test you've done that makes me wonder where the 40ws went. Granted that 40ws is not much, with the test Rob and I did (600ws vs. 500ws, both Elinchrom), the RX 600 was a fraction higher than the BXRi 500.
Kacey wrote:
Let me get this straight.... You took the back plate off the housing and held your light meter on the back side of the slots and got a insignificant reading? I will use a example of placing a fine Gobo in front of any light source and argue that point with you. The same amount of light is going through those slots than is proportionally going anywhere else around where the flash tube is being projecting.
Below is a quote from Paul about the Einstein.
Again here is the warning published after the product is sold. Warning: Operating Einstein for long periods of time with the modeling lamp set to full 250W with the unit pointing at a down angle can cause excess heating and possible damage to the Einstein.
I know Paul has a lot of fans and in some respects I'm one of them. As for the turn this tread has taken.... People can form their own conclusions about who is talking "gibberish".
Good find, Jerry. Hehe. I remember that claim, too, about the Einstein being compact and have better cooling then the AB/WL. But by the time the overheating problem came, when tilted down, I had forgotten about that. When I had B800s, I never had any overheating problem. Is it the halogen bulb, the 250w, the frosted dome, or all of the above?
First, a 7% power difference (600WS to 640WS) is 1/10 f stop. Second, "On axis/Off axis" if fully meaningless. A higher "off axis" reading can translate to more spill light (a negative) or to more light within the desired pattern (a positive). Since the E640 with 8 1/2" is sated as 2f stops below the center of the pattern and the standard specification of a reflector's beam spread is -1f point, this indicates what is being measured is spill light outside the reflector's design parameters . . . read "spill light".
If one wants a meaningful comparison the appropriate measurement technique is to place both units and reflectors 5 to10' from a large flat grey wall and take exposures of both, at the same f stop, and look at the distribution of light across the illuminated surface. If you want a real thrill, do this with an RX600 with 29° sports reflector (great for lighting big doughnuts) and with Einstein and 11" HO reflector. Or better yet, do this with E640 and Retro laser or still better, 51" or 64" PLMV2, then look at absolute output, evenness of coverage and control of unwanted spill.
Attempts to define reflectors by physical diameter is about as effective as comparing cars on the same basis . . . OMG my Hummer is bigger than my Lexus SUV . . . how came the Lexus goes faster and rides smoother . . . aren't they supposed to be the around the same size?. Bottom line is buy what you like best. But if you don't have the foggiest notion of what you are buying - well that's your problem.
A picture is worth a thousand words. And after all, this was supposed to be a PLM thread, not a pissing contest.
Einstein issues aside, i was looking into the "PLM" thread to learn more about well the PLM :P
Im not sold on the einsteins yet, but im definitely biting my time waiting on the PLMs especially now that theres a 7" version.
The shoot-through with black spill kill fabric is calling my name, i can hear it!
I just wished there was some way to make manufacturing faster, making a tons of new products is all great and stuff but not if they don't become available within a reasonable period of time.
My money would go into stopping advanced researching and improving production methods by researching alternative producers, suppliers.
If Kacey wants to be a participant in a pissing contest, fine with me, but he's going to have to compete with himself. I meant "insignificant" in relation to how much light was going forward. He's the one who said the cooling vents were "light sucking". He's also the guy trying to sell you his products.
It's pretty academic. The back slots are no longer there and the backplate is now like a mirror. The front end temperature has been reduced by over 100°F and PW issues are completely eliminated. I suggest everyone try to develop a product as complex and advanced as Einstien and hit every single design aspect 100%. Remember iPhone 4, with a 100 man engineering staff and unlimited development budget?
All Kacey had to do was a simple adapter and he ended up with a parallel wall light sucking tunnel with large amounts of black paint at the back sucking more light, then sets himself up as an expert. Those who live in glass houses . . . . none of us are true experts and we all learn day by day or we don't learn at all.
I could have put the modeling lamp an inch forward of the flashtube and eliminated the dome and had much better heat control. But I kind of prefer absolutely accurate model/flash patterns and the UV control and pattern smoothing of the dome. Sometimes you have to work a little harder to get what you want and what your customer appreciate. And sometimes people prefer slings and arrows and BS marketing to old fashioned ethics.
Paul Buff wrote:
It's pretty academic. The back slots are no longer there and the backplate is now like a mirror.
There are still the thousands of customers that already purchased the highly evolved airflow design
Glad I could do some troubleshooting for you from just a web pic....
Ellis, I had no idea you were the reviewer for Professional Photographer Magazine. Great magazine ! Are you the same person that issues the Hot One Awards?
BTW- I think it's clear who is here in the forum selling their products.
Paul Buff wrote:
First, a 7% power difference (600WS to 640WS) is 1/10 f stop. Second, "On axis/Off axis" if fully meaningless. A higher "off axis" reading can translate to more spill light (a negative) or to more light within the desired pattern (a positive). Since the E640 with 8 1/2" is sated as 2f stops below the center of the pattern and the standard specification of a reflector's beam spread is -1f point, this indicates what is being measured is spill light outside the reflector's design parameters . . . read "spill light".
I must disagree, Paul. I consider the test fully meaningful. At least to me. 6-feet off-axis at a 10-foot distance corresponds to a dispersion angle of approximately 60-degrees. The Elinchrom standard reflector is rated 60-degrees dispersion while the 7-inch reflector is rated 50-degrees. Your 8-1/2" reflector is rated 45-degrees dispersion while your 7" is rated 80-degrees. So, of the four reflectors, the 8-1/2" will have been at the greatest disadvantage as far as off-axis readings go. To remain within the 45-degree dispersion cone, the off-axis reading should have been taken at 4.2 feet rather than 6 feet. So that reflector might have been metered in its "spill" zone rather than in its primary coverage area which could account for the almost 2-stop difference, center-to-edge. However, note that the Elinchrom 7" was also metered in what should have been its "spill" zone yet the on- and off-axis readings varied by less than 1 stop. Different patterns to be sure.
If, as you say, a reflector's specified beam spread angle is determined by finding the -1 stop point relative to the center, then it would appear that the 7" AB reflector, which was down almost exactly 1 f/stop 6' off-axis, might have a true angle of dispersion closer to 60-degrees than to 80.
In any case, it was really the ON-AXIS metered results that were most of interest to me. The off-axis discussion is interesting but relates more to reflector geometry than raw light output and is therefore not really relevant to my main point, that being that the E640's 40WS advantage over the Elinchrom appears to be MIA in the light's current incarnation. Taking central meter readings using the two lights' "standard" reflectors is the best I can do as far as making the comparison apples-to-apples. The E640, logically, should have metered higher but it did not. That's the only point I wished to make. It will be most interesting to see how the new backplate impacts output.
Remember, Paul, I already own two Einsteins and have two more on order. I do like the lights
tetrode wroteIt will be most interesting to see how the new backplate impacts output
In the meantime, maybe an easy test is to put some reflective aluminum foil on the backplate to simulate the new backplate? Only if you're in a measuring mood though
kenyee wrote:
In the meantime, maybe an easy test is to put some reflective aluminum foil on the backplate to simulate the new backplate? Only if you're in a measuring mood though
I'll wait, thanks. I suspect that even PCB's generous service policy is not about to cover shorting the flashtube pins with aluminum foil
tetrode wrote:
I'll wait, thanks. I suspect that even PCB's generous service policy is not about to cover shorting the flashtube pins with aluminum foil
Dave F.
Good call, Dave
Thanks for posting your valid test results
I'm asking myself "Why would someone who depends on PCB products for a living start a pissing contest with Paul?" It wasn't subtle, it wasn't really in good taste and it sure as hell isn't good business..
People might take an example from Ellis, he disagrees on occasion but he's alwasy a gentleman. At the end of the day honour is still important.
Was that a question for me, Bryan?
If it is I'm not sure where you get the impression I depend on PCB for a living. I did not manufacture any products for PCB flashes with the exception one flat mounting ring. Just so happens mating them creates a combination that is superior to anything he has designed.
Read the complete post where this got started. .... He started it by blindly claiming my "adapter causes the flashtube to be recessed in a tunnel that fails to deliver what looks to be about 40% of the light to the umbrella surface". The facts are the flash tube is in fact further forward in the box than his products and bounces more light directly on the back surface of any softbox/octa or srtip than any insert he has ever made.
If you see any discrepancy in what I've posted... Man up and point it out! I can believe how many positive messages I've received, but the folks are afraid to post. Paul does not censor this forum like the one he controls.
Here is a quote from Paul Buff..... Paul Buff wrote:
Flash units with sub reflectors direct too much light to the softbox center. This is accentuated by the speedrings which adds another sub reflector. When I get time I'll design a better speedring sub reflector the doesn't do this. Our lights are already free of sub reflector and let more light go to the softbox edges. But I'm a tad busy right now.
Something like this.... Then he comments Paul Buff wrote
So, yes, your flat plate backplane is superior to the common sub reflector sold by everyone else . . . but only when the softbox itself is redesigned to take proper advantage of the change in flashtube geometry.WHAT A JOKE!!!!
Maybe he's upset someone beat him to it and also created a product that allows High End Elinchrom Modifiers to be mated to his flashes. Yes, this will and has cost him some modifier sales because I think it's a undisputed fact Elinchrom softbox's are miles ahead of Buff modifiers.
On the plus side it looks like Paul took the advise to delete the hidden vent holes behind the flash tube that are causing everyone to send their flash's back because of overheating issues. At least something good has come of this exchange.
- If you have some Elinchrom modifiers and want to use them with Einsteins, the Kacey adapter is a nearly-optimal solution, given the underlying design differences in the two mounts.
- The little reflector in the back of the PCB speedrings is by design, and probably is a more efficient way of using the light that comes off the back of the tube than Elinchrom's mount.
- On a large scale or small, apparently it takes a strong personality to bring cool products to market.
Kacey. Congratulations . . . you have made a major fool of yourself. I'll give you credit though for imagining you are some sort of major player and for your thinking that your posts actually had anything to do with my Einstein decisions that were made two months ago. There's an old story about a flea climbing up an elephant's leg with thoughts of a sexual relationship.
You know, I don't own any products from the people bickering in this thread, but at this point, reading all these comments has certainly opened my eyes about which brands I should AVOID. Really classless and unprofessional, and most certainly does not inspire consumer confidence that should I ever have any concerns, that I would be treated with respect. At the end of the day, I don't give a crap about how perfect your products might be--if you make me feel uneasy about buying from you, you don't get my money. Thanks for exposing yourselves.
No.... One might point out far more foolish to spend 2 plus years designing then redesigning a product that is claimed all over the net when it was released by the inventor to have a "Cooling volume is about four times that of AB/WL. Yes, it's full of parts and is purposely very compact. The airflow design is highly evolved and has a very effective path through all components. Multiple heat sensors protect everything from overheat damage."
Then it shows up on the door step and you get a press release via email Warning: Operating Einstein for long periods of time with the modeling lamp set to full 250W with the unit pointing at a down angle can cause excess heating and possible damage to the Einstein.
The funny thing is a kindergartener could see that placing huge vents directly behind the flash tube and modeling light is going to channel all that heat directly into the "highly evolved airflow design." I've referenced all the changes you have itemized and shared so freely on the forum for V2. Did I miss somewhere that you said you are illuminating these poorly designed and placed vent holes?
Also since this change was in place about two months ago as you just stated... Did you stop sales and make sure each and every new one that was sent out had these stupid vents removed? (If you respond to anything I hope it's this question) Hurry Up and Buy Before the Price goes Up....
I have to hand it to you though... You do have the most well needed, state of the art customer service on the planet..... or any other planet at least in our galaxy..... You can send a product DOA to a customer and the next thing they are online posting what a outstanding experience it was. You can send out 1000's of Einstein's right now that are flawed with serious well documented issues and many of your customers are fighting to get them.
You have freely put down all kinds of manufactures all over the net and have for years. Well, i'm not going to stand for it when you start in on me.
Here is one instance that comes to mind when the great guys at Radio Popper offered a new interface to control Paul's flashes.
Paul Buff wrote:
OK - they reverse engineered our 22 year old analog interface and added D to A converter and a phone jack to control it.
My general comment is that this company has a record of introducing products that are often vaporware. Link
Saying this to his customers about a well respected company that has introduced many advances in the industry. Vaporware..... from the guy that brought us the AB Max.
