New lights from Lencarta....

[mike weeks]

I fully appreciate the technical aspects and the fact that these are designed for the studio and I have my Safari Li-ion if I want to shoot outdoors but was really interested in just what else you could do.

One of the reasons for asking was because of the loss of power due to using the tail. I supose the real answer is true focal plane shutter.

Mike

 

[Triggaaar]

I'm just going by the website Garry, that says t.1 duration of 1/800sec at full power, both SF300 and SF600 identical, but dramatically different minimum durations, ie 1/20,000sec and 1/5000sec. Is that confirmed?

Garry has confirmed with me that those figures are incorrect. He says the minimum t.1 is 1/20,000 and 1/10,000 respectively. He also says that the 300 & 600 are about the same for any given power setting (the 300 goes a stop lower in power, so a stop shorter duration). I questioned how they're both so similar (duration) at their respective maximum power (where the 600 is a stop brighter), but Garry says they become equal by 150W. I'd love to do my own tests, but sadly I'll only have a 300W.

 

[HoppyUK]

Garry has confirmed with me that those figures are incorrect. He says the minimum t.1 is 1/20,000 and 1/10,000 respectively. He also says that the 300 & 600 are about the same for any given power setting (the 300 goes a stop lower in power, so a stop shorter duration). I questioned how they're both so similar (duration) at their respective maximum power (where the 600 is a stop brighter), but Garry says they become equal by 150W. I'd love to do my own tests, but sadly I'll only have a 300W.

LOL There had to be some mistakes somewhere. Jury's out until we have some hard numbers then. The whole plot hangs on them.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Garry has confirmed with me that those figures are incorrect. He says the minimum t.1 is 1/20,000 and 1/10,000 respectively. He also says that the 300 & 600 are about the same for any given power setting (the 300 goes a stop lower in power, so a stop shorter duration). I questioned how they're both so similar (duration) at their respective maximum power (where the 600 is a stop brighter), but Garry says they become equal by 150W. I'd love to do my own tests, but sadly I'll only have a 300W.

As above. It was all a bit rushed and there are errors on the website etc that will be corrected. Until that happens, the website is understating the performance of the 600 model.

Some of the better photographic magazines will be able to carry out their own, independent testing soon, which I'm confident will reassure people. Meanwhile, the website carries photos of action shots that proves that it all works

and the people who saw the various demos at Focus saw it for themselves 'in the flesh'.
There's a very short video of it happening here and as I said earlier, I will post the sequence shots from those demos when I get them, Jeremy, who is the evil genius responsible for soaking poor Jade, is sending them to me.

 

[Garry Edwards]

There are now some sequence shots on the Lencarta lighting blog

 

[digitalfailure]

I had a very brief and totally unscientific play with the SF heads at Focus and although I can't confirm the speeds with accurate readings, I can honestly say that the action of these lights is blisteringly quick and it really was flashing as quick as the camera would shoot

I'm looking forward to seeing the true / confirmed numbers come out

 

[Garry Edwards]

I'm looking forward to seeing the true / confirmed numbers come out

The numbers are true. I've arranged to send one to Advanced Photographer for independent testing, that can't happen immediately because at the moment the orders are flooding in and of course customers get priority, but it will happen soon. It will then be a while before the magazine can do their stuff, and I'm desperately hoping that they will schedule a full review, and even better include the small number of other IGBT flashes that have recently been launched in that review - I like comparisons

But all this will take time. Meanwhile, we're doing another demanding shoot with them next week and I'm hoping that some of the customers who are getting theirs now will post about them on t'internet too.

 

[HoppyUK]

The numbers are true. I've arranged to send one to Advanced Photographer for independent testing, that can't happen immediately because at the moment the orders are flooding in and of course customers get priority, but it will happen soon. It will then be a while before the magazine can do their stuff, and I'm desperately hoping that they will schedule a full review, and even better include the small number of other IGBT flashes that have recently been launched in that review - I like comparisons

But all this will take time. Meanwhile, we're doing another demanding shoot with them next week and I'm hoping that some of the customers who are getting theirs now will post about them on t'internet too.

Garry, Lencarta website current says:

SF300 - Flash duration (t.1): 1/800th at full power, reducing to 1/20,000th at minimum power
SF600 - Flash duration (t.1): 1/800th at full power, reducing to 1/5,000th at minimum power

It would be unusual for the full power durations to be the same, especially in relation to the significantly different min power durations, hence the query. Are they confirmed as correct?


Edit: min power for both is stated as 1/32nd output.

 

[Garry Edwards]

No, there are various small errors on the website that I'm trying to sort out. The full power recycling time for the SF600 is correct, the full power time for the SF300 is in fact even better, I just need to dig out my test results and update the website. And these are t.1 times
The flash duration figure for the SF600 is in fact 1/10,000th at min power, again t.1

 

[tiler65]

The numbers are true. I've arranged to send one to Advanced Photographer for independent testing, that can't happen immediately because at the moment the orders are flooding in and of course customers get priority, but it will happen soon. It will then be a while before the magazine can do their stuff, and I'm desperately hoping that they will schedule a full review, and even better include the small number of other IGBT flashes that have recently been launched in that review - I like comparisons

Would it not be better to send 2 or even 3 lights to test so that they could evaluate a set up, which the majority of people would use?

Then the triggers can be tested too (optical, radio, sync lead etc...)

 

[HoppyUK]

No, there are various small errors on the website that I'm trying to sort out. The full power recycling time for the SF600 is correct, the full power time for the SF300 is in fact even better, I just need to dig out my test results and update the website. And these are t.1 times
The flash duration figure for the SF600 is in fact 1/10,000th at min power, again t.1

That fits better, but then points to the SF600's full power duration being rather longer than 1/800sec.

Pro-rata to the SF300 it could be around 1/400-500sec t.1, still a good number (maybe 1/1200-1/1500sec t.5?) but not as currently stated.

 

[Garry Edwards]

That fits better, but then points to the SF600's full power duration being rather longer than 1/800sec.

Pro-rata to the SF300 it could be around 1/400-500sec t.1, still a good number (maybe 1/1200-1/1500sec t.5?) but not as currently stated.

I think that you're probably making the perfectly reasonable assumption that the 600 model is actually 2 x 300's bolted together, as in the Lencarta ElitePro 300, UltraPro 600, Elinchrom Style etc. But it isn't.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Would it not be better to send 2 or even 3 lights to test so that they could evaluate a set up, which the majority of people would use?

Then the triggers can be tested too (optical, radio, sync lead etc...)

That's the thing. These are high performance flash heads designed for a specific purpose (freezing action and for use in machine gun mode) and people are buying them as individual items as required, at present they aren't even being offered as kits, although some of the orders are for several units.

If the sole objective is to freeze action, then buying just one head is an option for most people, blur from other, normal-performance heads is less of a problem than you might think as long as the SuperFast is being used as a powerful key light, the contribution from slower lights can only produce weak ghosting blur if they are contributing substantially less light. Of course, that won't hold good if people go for flat lighting

If the objective is to fire machine gun bursts, then of course ordinary flash heads can't keep up and people will need all of the lighting to be SuperFast.

 

[tiler65]

That's the thing. These are high performance flash heads designed for a specific purpose (freezing action and for use in machine gun mode) and people are buying them as individual items as required, at present they aren't even being offered as kits, although some of the orders are for several units.

If the sole objective is to freeze action, then buying just one head is an option for most people, blur from other, normal-performance heads is less of a problem than you might think as long as the SuperFast is being used as a powerful key light, the contribution from slower lights can only produce weak ghosting blur if they are contributing substantially less light. Of course, that won't hold good if people go for flat lighting

If the objective is to fire machine gun bursts, then of course ordinary flash heads can't keep up and people will need all of the lighting to be SuperFast.

At least you cleared that up - will that be part of your marketing?

 

[HoppyUK]

I think that you're probably making the perfectly reasonable assumption that the 600 model is actually 2 x 300's bolted together, as in the Lencarta ElitePro 300, UltraPro 600, Elinchrom Style etc. But it isn't.

I wasn't thinking that Garry. It's simply the (apparent) inconsistency between the max and min durations of both heads. It just doesn't sit right (and there have been a few typos ).

For the avoidance of doubt as much as anything, please confirm the full power flash duration of the SF600.

 

[Triggaaar]

I wasn't thinking that Garry. It's simply the (apparent) inconsistency between the max and min durations of both heads. It just doesn't sit right (and there have been a few typos ).

Indeed, it just doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I'll get the fine details correct ASAP. I'm happy with my detailed testing, I'm happy with the real world performance and more importantly, customers will be happy too. Has your one arrived yet Mike?

 

[Triggaaar]

Has your one arrived yet Mike?

Yep, arrived this morning thanks. Hopefully I'll be able to test it a little tomorrow.

 

[Triggaaar]

Yep, arrived this morning thanks. Hopefully I'll be able to test it a little tomorrow.

Well I didn't. While I was prepared for my son's birthday, I wasn't prepared for the school being closed due to snow.

Anyway, testing done today, and I'm pretty happy so far.
My Elemental lights are giving results similar to a standard shutter speed of 1/300 (the t.5 is better than 1/400, the t.1 is worse).

The Lencarta SF 300 at full power, gives results that are better than a standard shutter speed of 1/800 IMO.
At 1/2 power, there is a significant improvement (I've not compared it to a standard shutter speed yet).
At a 1/4 power, the improvement is again significant. Impressive results.
At 1/8 power, I was surprised to find very little improvement over 1/4 power (even though I recorded a larger reduction in light output @ 2.5m than when halving the power on higher settings).

I can do tests at lower settings later, but I'll be using it more around 1/4 to 1/2 power I'd think.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Well I didn't. While I was prepared for my son's birthday, I wasn't prepared for the school being closed due to snow.

Anyway, testing done today, and I'm pretty happy so far.
My Elemental lights are giving results similar to a standard shutter speed of 1/300 (the t.5 is better than 1/400, the t.1 is worse).

The Lencarta SF 300 at full power, gives results that are better than a standard shutter speed of 1/800 IMO.
At 1/2 power, there is a significant improvement (I've not compared it to a standard shutter speed yet).
At a 1/4 power, the improvement is again significant. Impressive results.
At 1/8 power, I was surprised to find very little improvement over 1/4 power (even though I recorded a larger reduction in light output @ 2.5m than when halving the power on higher settings).


I can do tests at lower settings later, but I'll be using it more around 1/4 to 1/2 power I'd think.

Yep, we always tend to understate performance, working on the premise that it's better to under-promise and over-perform

From what I've seen, in my wandering around factories, other makes tend to have very slow flash durations at full power. To hide that fact, their engineers tend to clip (quench) the full power output as well as the lower powered output, this speeds up the full power flash duration a bit but results in much lower real output than stated. I could give examples but I won't, as it will be unhelpful to one supplier in particular. Our SuperFast flashes don't do that, the full power output, although unclipped, is fast and it also delivers all of the stated power. We're stating a t.1 time of 1/800th but in reality it seems to be nearer to 1/1000th, so that probably equates to a t.5 time of 1/3000th, putting it very near to the top of the tree even at full power, and of course much faster at lower settings.

Once the power setting is reduced, both the reduction in flash energy and the increase in speed is linear, so it must in fact be half the output and twice the speed when you reduce the power from 1/4 to 1/2.

I believe, but can't prove, that the flash duration at minimum power is actually better than the 1/20,000th that we claim. I can't prove it because my oscilloscope is at its limit with these incredibly short flash durations - just how some people with ancient oscilloscopes can get accurate duration readings just beats me

The only thing that I still need to test, which I haven't had time to do yet, is to test with a film camera. I have a wonderful F90 lying around and will put a film through it, testing to see whether recipocity failure is a problem at super fast flash durations, just because I like to be complete.

 

[Steve T]

Me too, someone said I was a 'complete' prat last week, made my day

 

[Triggaaar]

Me too, someone said I was a 'complete' prat last week, made my day

Have you replied to the right thread? If so, what's the 'me too' referring to?

 

[HoppyUK]

Yep, we always tend to understate performance, working on the premise that it's better to under-promise and over-perform

From what I've seen, in my wandering around factories, other makes tend to have very slow flash durations at full power. To hide that fact, their engineers tend to clip (quench) the full power output as well as the lower powered output, this speeds up the full power flash duration a bit but results in much lower real output than stated. I could give examples but I won't, as it will be unhelpful to one supplier in particular. Our SuperFast flashes don't do that, the full power output, although unclipped, is fast and it also delivers all of the stated power. We're stating a t.1 time of 1/800th but in reality it seems to be nearer to 1/1000th, so that probably equates to a t.5 time of 1/3000th, putting it very near to the top of the tree even at full power, and of course much faster at lower settings.

Once the power setting is reduced, both the reduction in flash energy and the increase in speed is linear, so it must in fact be half the output and twice the speed when you reduce the power from 1/4 to 1/2.

I believe, but can't prove, that the flash duration at minimum power is actually better than the 1/20,000th that we claim. I can't prove it because my oscilloscope is at its limit with these incredibly short flash durations - just how some people with ancient oscilloscopes can get accurate duration readings just beats me

The only thing that I still need to test, which I haven't had time to do yet, is to test with a film camera. I have a wonderful F90 lying around and will put a film through it, testing to see whether recipocity failure is a problem at super fast flash durations, just because I like to be complete.

Yes, it all begins with the full power flash duration and from that (assuming unclipped) it's quite easy to estimate durations at lower power settings that tend to run pretty much pro-rata. That's why, if your SF600 and SF300 work in the same way, the max and min durations appear to be out of kilter.

Looking forward to trying the SF heads Garry My new flash durations rig can run much faster than the old one, though 1/20,000sec will push it a bit! And I too have had my doubts about the claims some manufacturers make using a regular oscilloscope - not that I've got much time for that kind of measurement TBH, since it can be so inherently misleading (though very interesting, if you're that way inclined).

On the other hand, I don't think the fastest durations matter that much. Power output is low, and who needs less than, say 1/4000- 1/6000sec anyway? That's already faster than you need to freeze things like flying water and milk etc, ie kinda 'normal' photography. Faster than that is more for scientific use and analysis. But really good power at say 1/5000sec, and with absolutely clean cut-off like only IGBT can do, now that's something new

Be interesting to see your reciprocity tests with film, though I'm not sure you'll see much - film has always worked pretty well with hot-shoe guns that can go quite a bit quicker than 1/20000. Reciprocity failure is mainly a problem with long exposure times, like longer than one second, and it gets pretty bad quite quickly after that, with uncorrectable colour shifts as well. Digital doesn't suffer reciprocity failure.

 

[Garry Edwards]

You're right, there is unlikely to be a serious level of reciprocity failure when used with film, but I'm going to try it to make sure. Certainly some film was more prone to reciprocity failure, at one extreme or the other, than others.

Not having that problem with digital is IMO one of the major benefits of digital. Mind you, I remember other problems in the early days of digital with long exposures, from what I remember it was image noise due to excessive heat at long exposures.

As for the actual need for such short flash durations, you're right - but you can't blame us for shouting about what has been achieved here, it's way out in front of all the others

 

[One1002]

Garry, may I know if this is the exact copy of Godox QT-600?

Also, I noticed that the lowest output of the Lencarta SF is 1/32. But, the Godox QT-600 stated it's 1/128. Hmm, having the options to go down as far as 1/128 is great! But i guess the it was a typo for the QT-600?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Garry, may I know if this is the exact copy of Godox QT-600?

Also, I noticed that the lowest output of the Lencarta SF is 1/32. But, the Godox QT-600 stated it's 1/128. Hmm, having the options to go down as far as 1/128 is great! But i guess the it was a typo for the QT-600?

If it went down to 1/128th there would be colour temperature problems.
All of the bits that matter are identical to the next generation of the Godox QT-600, but the current generation is very different, and the ones that have been available from Ebay sellers are different again, an earlier model still.