Do you quickly grow out of starter systems?

B

BlackCloud

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,795
Edit My Images
No
Do you quickly move on from starter systems? Appreciated not everyone can have a proper studio or a big room set aside. So, really aimed at people who perhaps have only a small space at home, maybe are doing portrait photography in peoples homes or schools... Do these entry level units with only 200-250 watts feel under-powered? Do you feel a need to move on? Are they powerful enough by the time you add modifiers, softboxes etc?

Really trying to gauge if it's worth buying more pwerful from the start? Any advice appreciated.
 
I'd regard 400w/s as a minimum if I only had one.

Depend on what aperture you want to run at/what modifiers you like.
 
Last edited:
A few years ago, when all we had was film, power was vitally important.
It's still pretty important for people with point and shoot cameras, because their high ISO performance is poor, but modern DSLR cameras perform pretty well at 200 and even 400 ISO so people have the option to turn up the ISO and effectively double or quadruple the effective power of their flashes without ruining the quality, so power doesn't really matter much, to most people, in most shooting situations, most of the time. In fact the only real benefit of more powerful flash heads is that they can be used at low power settings, which means that they recycle more quickly and that they are never worked to their maximum.

The things that really do matter are consistent colour temperature, consistent flash energy, fast recycling and good build quality, because new technology in cameras doesn't make these things any less important than they used to be - and many of the starter kits economise on the componants that affect these things.

The only modifiers that really do soak up the power are honeycombs. There isn't really all that much real world difference in the amount of power 'lost' by tools such as softboxes, umbrellas, beauty dishes and even fresnel spots.
 
I have a Elincrome D-Lite 2 set (2x200Ws) and as Garry said I've just gone up in ISO a bit if running out of power. Even my ancient Canon 1D does a decent ISO 200/400 but beyond that it's pretty hopeless. Then again I'm not making money from photos, but I haven't (often) felt the need for more power when shooting one person at a time or couples.

That said, I should've gotten the 400Ws ones if I'm honest. But I'm probably going to keep the D-Lite 2s around even if I upgrade, they don't seem to be all that bad and I can get shorter flash duration for a low power shot than with 400Ws ones. They also have the built-in Skyport receivers so if I continue with Elinchrome that'd be a bonus.

As a sidebar, don't underestimate the flexibility, portability and TTL capabilities that a couple of speedlights will give you. I thought they were alien technology and useless in my clumsy hands until I learned to shoot fully manual with the studio flashes. Then I went back to even on-camera flash and wow what a difference. Studio flash forced me to learn flash so that I really understand things much better now and setting changes are becoming almost reflex.
 
Agree with Garry. I too use Elinchrom D-Lite 2 (200ws) and for portraits they're generally on less than half power. Many people get by just fine using hot-shoe guns with only 60ws equivalent. I'm not advocating that, but you get the point.

I think control is more important than power and I really like the way I can put the light exactly where I want it and moderate the output 1/10th of a stop at a time :thumbs:

That's for portraits and light duty stuff. If my style of shooting changed and I had to do big interiors or cars maybe and other large scale stuff, that would be different. Very different, and I wouldn't be looking at 400 or 600ws, more like a few 1600ws power packs.
 
Power is very important to me because:

- if I'm using studio flash over hotshoe guns, I'm doing so for one main reason - power. Plain and simple. I often want as much power as that thing will spit out.
- you can turn a more powerful gun down, you can't turn a less powerful one up.
- if I'm shooting kids on seamless, or a three layer family group at their home (at a wedding for eg kids on floor, bride on chair, mum and dad behind), I want every single bit of aperture I can get at a nice ISO. Kids move around, so focussing is less critical. Three layers of people needs a decent aperture at moderate long focal lengths, if I can get f11 out of a 400 watt/sec, you'll be running at f8 out of your 200.
- the more powerful guns will never leave me thinking, humm... should I upgrade? 400watt/sec is a nice happy medium powered gun. I regard 200 as a low powered gun.
- pump up the ISO is one way of making weak guns more powerful, but I can always make my more powerful guns even more powerful. 100-200 iso, not very noticeable, 400-800 noticeable on virtually any camera, imho.
- Changing ISO is a global change, affecting ambient as well as flash. Turn up the flash and leave the ISO alone only affects flash. Chaging ISO to compensate for an underpowered flash only works if 100% of your light is flash, and there is no ambient - i.e. inside a dark studio. Almost all my work is location to try and get natural photographs that may be flash lit, but look natural in a natural setting.
- there isn't much difference in price between a 200 and 400 - eg, its only £30 for the Calumet Genesis and £40 for the Elinchrom D-Lite. There is no real reason not to get the more powerful one then.
- many of my nicest modifiers are light suckers.
- my skys will be half as bright as yours, if you are trying to reduce a very bright ambient.
- easier to ratio with more than one gun - eg, if you have one gun that is twice as powerful as the other, then your main and fill are already set. Therefore....
- a 200watt sec gun would be useful as a second light, but not as the one and only light (if that's all you can afford) and definitely not as a set of two or three equally powered guns, which I cant see the point of.

All in all, 200watt sec would have me reaching for my cheque book sooner rather than later.

YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Interesting advice Kris. I'm just looking to get a whole kit, and I'll get at least 3/400 units (background, fill, hair etc) with one 600 (key). Is your advice mainly regarding key lighting, or do you find you need the power on more than one light?
 
The world is used to looking at photographs with one main light, ie the sun. I almost always work key and fill, whether flash or ambient it doesn't matter.

If all your flashes have equal power, then you are by necessity stuck at half power for the fill. If one on your guns is more powerful, it gives you much more variety and control to ratio them and have power overall. Of course, modifiers affect power as well, typically losing two stops off a good medium softbox, so you need the power for that.

Unfortunately, is gets expensive quickly when you go above 400w/s, which seems to be a sweet spot for manufacturers. Don't forget, to gain a stop over 400 you need to go to 800 watt/sec - look up the prices of 800w/s guns and you will see what I mean!

Sorry, I dont understand the replies above claiming that you dont need power. I need it, lots of it.
 
Kris said:
- Changing ISO is a global change, affecting ambient as well as flash. Turn up the flash and leave the ISO alone only affects flash. Chaging ISO to compensate for an underpowered flash only works if 100% of your light is flash, and there is no ambient - i.e. inside a dark studio. Almost all my work is location to try and get natural photographs that may be flash lit, but look natural in a natural setting.
Click to expand...

But, assuming you're not already at your max sync speed, you can bump up from ISO200 to ISO400 and simply half your shutter speed (going from say, 1/60th to 1/125th) to get the same ambient level with twice the flash power.
 
jamesoliverstone said:
Just put your lights closer to the subject ;)
Click to expand...
That delivers more light, but changes the quality of the light. The correct distance from light to subject is the distance that produces the required effect, not the distance that produces the required level of energy.
 
Kaouthia said:
But, assuming you're not already at your max sync speed, you can bump up from ISO200 to ISO400 and simply half your shutter speed (going from say, 1/60th to 1/125th) to get the same ambient level with twice the flash power.
Click to expand...

Sunny 16 means I am often banging against the max sync speed.

Have been meaning to get a Canon G11 to free me from it, but not sure how clients would feel about me shooting them with a compact.
 
Another reason for using powerful guns is that you can overpower a very bright ambient through the use of ND filters on the lens, but again this is a global change that requires powerful guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top