The shutter speed is relevant to flash too, and shouldn't be disregarded, because the Safari (and similar tools) is primarily designed for outdoor use, where the mix of ambient and flash is highly relevant and people typically use the fastest reliable synch speed to control the effect of the ambient light. Using a shutter speed of, say, 1/250th sec 'clips' the tail as the flash energy degrades.
I haven't checked your maths, you may be right although I doubt it.
Also, I haven't checked the t.1 time, but it's reasonable to assume that it will be in the region of t.5 x 3, e.g. somewhere between 1/600th and 1/700th. The reason that it's only been tested at t.5 is that t.5 is the industry standard. We need and use industry standard testing benchmarks simply because they
are benchmarks, even though they are not always strictly relevant - as an example, my model of car has a tested 0 - 62 time of 7.9 seconds but my particular car has never acheived that figure because I don't want to wreck the gearbox, clutch and tyres by driving like a maniac
Flash duration is one of those technical specs that can be less helpful than it seems. Partly because figures quoted often can't actually be achieved, and partly because, for many of us, a degree of subject blur (say in the hair of a model) is a good thing not a bad thing because it makes the shot look real - this may not
appear to be the case with say sports photography, but even then it's a balancing act - a shot of someone riding a bike needs to look
generally sharp, but if the wheel spokes and even the pedals have no movement blur then it will look wrong.
Why can't quoted figures always be achieved? I've tested a lot of flash heads and I often find that both flash duration figures and colour temperature consistency can vary
a lot from the figures quoted in the sales spec. If I was the cynical type I might wonder whether some of the sellers just re-print figures supplied by others, safe in the knowledge that most people don't have the means to test for themselves, which is downright dishonest.
Relying on the work of others is a little foolhardy when £2,000 is involved. The camera always lies
You may be right - I was just pointing out that there are gifted, successful people out there who don't need to shop around for the cheapest but who still chose Safari - and anyway, you can buy
2 Safari kits for £2,000
As I keep saying, a given flash isn't all things to all photographers and we need to make our individual decisions based on our individual needs. For a lot of people, the Safari is ideal, others can justify spending several times as much on a Profoto, or can manage with the limited power of a hotshoe flash.
