Studio head upgrade?

TimHughes

TimHughes

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,655
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
The question is whether to upgrade to godox studio heads and if so, which ones?

The main flashes in the studio are 3x Priolite MB 500 and one has recently broken. In checking out the repair, which will be costly, it seems like Priolite may be ceasing to trade, so we're thinking maybe it's time to switch to godox and make integration easier with existing AD200s and godox speedlights for complex setups than using slave mode (which hasn't always worked).

Does anyone have information on what is happening with Priolite?

If we think about trading the old ones in for Godox, what's the best source of flash duration vs power? I couldn't find that on their website. The QT1200IIIM looks great for the key light, maybe with SK400II for background?

Thoughts?
 
QT1200 *in speed mode* is probably best combination of price, short flash duration & high power around. In speed mode the colour wanders around a little, esp as you vary the power.
That means you can end up with orange-tinged shadows from a differently coloured fill light. That may not matter for your usage of course.

It's a heavy beast. You'll need a decent stand & I'm wary of putting it up high, especially on a boom.

The short recycle time is awesome but do you actually need all that power? What are you shooting? 400 is normally enough for a key light in a dark studio.
 
Consider Godox's Pro line if it's within your budget to do so. The 600s are great, but the 400s seem versatile as well. Both are very color stable, even when not in COLOR mode. One drawback of the 400 is that it features a proprietary mount, eschewing Bowens. It can be corrected with a Bowens adapter, but then bulks up a little and the standard cover no longer fits. But it has all of the features of the 600s - remote head, AC adapter, and weighs less.
 
juggler said:
QT1200 *in speed mode* is probably best combination of price, short flash duration & high power around. In speed mode the colour wanders around a little, esp as you vary the power.
That means you can end up with orange-tinged shadows from a differently coloured fill light. That may not matter for your usage of course.

It's a heavy beast. You'll need a decent stand & I'm wary of putting it up high, especially on a boom.

The short recycle time is awesome but do you actually need all that power? What are you shooting? 400 is normally enough for a key light in a dark studio.
Click to expand...

Thank you! We're shooting people. For personal branding, CV headshots and similar 400 is fine and there is no need for an especially short flash duration. As time goes by, the frequency of more creative shoots is increasing, e.g. for poster campaigns and we've been using more focus spots with color gels and introducing more movement (people jumping or hair blown with a big fan). These extras have been pushing the MB500s to their limit and what caused one to fail. So I was thinking a step up in power for the key light might be sensible. 1200 might well be too much.

jlafferty said:
Consider Godox's Pro line if it's within your budget to do so. The 600s are great, but the 400s seem versatile as well. Both are very color stable, even when not in COLOR mode. One drawback of the 400 is that it features a proprietary mount, eschewing Bowens. It can be corrected with a Bowens adapter, but then bulks up a little and the standard cover no longer fits. But it has all of the features of the 600s - remote head, AC adapter, and weighs less.
Click to expand...

Thank you! I saw a version of the 400 with Bowens mount at a very budget price so may get one anyway.

I do think Godox is the way to go for us as the repair cost for the Priolite is more than the cost of some of the Godox options.
 
My take on this is that it usually pays for amateur photographers to spend a bit more on lighting. Bodging and cost-cutting is fine for experimental use, but rarely makes economic sense in the long term. I've never understood why so many people are happy to spend many thousands on top-spec cameras and lenses but try to save pennies on the lighting equipment that actually makes a real difference to the results . . .

Moving on to professional use, it's a no-brainer - it always pays to over-specify on lighting equipment, the extra cost per shot is negligible and it's a false economy to buy just about adequate equipment that has to work hard, shortening its life, so even if you don't actually need powerful lighting it still makes sense to have it, and to give it an easier life.
TimHughes said:
As time goes by, the frequency of more creative shoots is increasing, e.g. for poster campaigns and we've been using more focus spots with color gels and introducing more movement (people jumping or hair blown with a big fan).
Click to expand...
Focussing lights need a lot more power, and gelled lights need one or two stops more power.

Reluctantly, I have to say that Godox is the way to go. I don't know whether or not the future of Priolite is secure, but I do know that there are several good makes that are struggling to survive now that Godox dominates the lighting world, and this situation isn't going to change!
 
Garry Edwards said:
My take on this is that it usually pays for amateur photographers to spend a bit more on lighting. Bodging and cost-cutting is fine for experimental use, but rarely makes economic sense in the long term. I've never understood why so many people are happy to spend many thousands on top-spec cameras and lenses but try to save pennies on the lighting equipment that actually makes a real difference to the results . . .

Moving on to professional use, it's a no-brainer - it always pays to over-specify on lighting equipment, the extra cost per shot is negligible and it's a false economy to buy just about adequate equipment that has to work hard, shortening its life, so even if you don't actually need powerful lighting it still makes sense to have it, and to give it an easier life.

Focussing lights need a lot more power, and gelled lights need one or two stops more power.

Reluctantly, I have to say that Godox is the way to go. I don't know whether or not the future of Priolite is secure, but I do know that there are several good makes that are struggling to survive now that Godox dominates the lighting world, and this situation isn't going to change!
Click to expand...
Thanks Garry, it must be very difficult for the other companies. The price of the 1200 from Godox is a very small number of final images....
 
jlafferty said:
Consider Godox's Pro line if it's within your budget to do so. The 600s are great, but the 400s seem versatile as well. Both are very color stable, even when not in COLOR mode. One drawback of the 400 is that it features a proprietary mount, eschewing Bowens. It can be corrected with a Bowens adapter, but then bulks up a little and the standard cover no longer fits. But it has all of the features of the 600s - remote head, AC adapter, and weighs less.
Click to expand...
I like the 600Pro very much but it's a bit expensive if there's no need to pay for battery power as in this case.
 
Agreed

But it's not cheaper if deciding later that you needed DC powered lights after all, even if only for one job, and having to buy again or rent.

The AC adapter for the 600 / 1200 is excellent. The price difference between the qt to the ad 600 isn't that great either, mostly just the £100 AC adapter.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I totally hear you all on the "drawbacks" of the 600Pros, mainly cost and babysitting the batteries over long periods of storage. However, they are all around better lights, and I'd argue even better than their Profoto counterparts. Color stability, recycle time, output stability, modifier ecosystem, and so on.

As an alternative, I'd also suggest looking into the 300Pros - they are the "just right" small light for me, where the 100s/200s are just a tiny bit underpowered, and the 400s might be overkill. If you're shooting ½, ¾ length portraits, basically anything but action photography, the 300s are wonderful.
 
Priolite is insolvent .... https://www.priolite.com/

"Dear PRIOLITE customers, this page is being rebuilt after the insolvency of the GmbH. If you have any questions or concerns in advance, do not hesitate to contact us at info@priolite.com."
 
TimHughes said:
Priolite is insolvent .... https://www.priolite.com/

"Dear PRIOLITE customers, this page is being rebuilt after the insolvency of the GmbH. If you have any questions or concerns in advance, do not hesitate to contact us at info@priolite.com."
Click to expand...
Sad but not unexpected, it's very difficult now for all lighting manufacturers other than Godox, but that's what the buying public voted for . . .

Reading between the lines, it may be that Priolite will continue under different ownership.
 
So I've gone for a QT1200III plus an AC adapter for the AD600B we've had a few years for location shoots. With 2x AD200s for rim lights, we should be set.

Just in time, another of the Priolites is malfunctioning now too. That said, they've been in frequent use for about 10 years so not bad service.
 
I made the switch to Godox 3 years ago, and now mostly use Godox SK300 and SK400 lights in my studio with no regrets at all. They have been doing a great job. I also have a few MS300 that work OK, but I've found that the SK series are built better, though slightly larger, and I tend to use the SK series more often. I do have one DP1000 II that I use with a Wellmaking lens for projecting patterns on the backgrounds, as a DP400 has proven that it just isn't powerful enough for the light loses going through this Wellmaking lens. I've been using the Godox X PRO c transmitters and now have 2 for my Canon cameras and one for my Fuji.I have yet to have a shoot failure, operator failure yes, but not the result of the Godox lights or communications.

Charley
 
juggler said:
In speed mode the colour wanders around a little, esp as you vary the power.
That means you can end up with orange-tinged shadows from a differently coloured fill light. That may not matter for your usage of course.
Click to expand...

Side note on this: Tony Kuyper offers a luminosity mask action that, long ago I paid for, and then stripped down to a very minimal version. I suggest anyone get it - it's a core workflow component on all of my work, splitting a three Curve folder into Lows, Mids, Highs. You can then discretely edit, shift color in these regions of exposure, independent of the others (and the lows and highs you can push even further using Apply Image with Multiply selected, copying the original mask onto itself). I’m in no way associated with Tony or the action, just find it incredibly useful. I just checked his website and it looks like he has made some serious progress and changes vs. when I paid - interesting. He's very communicative and helpful. Here's the link: https://tonykuyper.wordpress.com/20...-tk-lum-mask-plugin-for-adobe-photoshop-2021/
 
Last edited:
jlafferty said:
Side note on this: Tony Kuyper offers a luminosity mask action that, long ago I paid for, and then stripped down to a very minimal version. I suggest anyone get it - it's a core workflow component on all of my work, splitting a three Curve folder into Lows, Mids, Highs. You can then discretely edit, shift color in these regions of exposure, independent of the others (and the lows and highs you can push even further using Apply Image with Multiply selected, copying the original mask onto itself). I’m in no way associated with Tony or the action, just find it incredibly useful. I just checked his website and it looks like he has made some serious progress and changes vs. when I paid - interesting. He's very communicative and helpful. Here's the link: https://tonykuyper.wordpress.com/20...-tk-lum-mask-plugin-for-adobe-photoshop-2021/
Click to expand...
Interesting, I've played with luminosity masks occasionally but have rarely found them useful. Curves + blend_if get me 90% of the way there a whole heap more quickly.
 
I’ve set it up as a keyboard shortcut, and in an instant it splits the image into three curves layers inside a folder. I’m sure Blend If is accurate enough for a lot of things, I’ve just found this really helpful. I usually hit the mids at least and I’m not sure how I’d do that with blend modes. The other benefit is that once the masks have been generated, you can apply them to any other layer to e.g. drop saturation or add blue/cyan, but only to the shadows - just cmd+option drag the mask to any layer in your stack.
 
jlafferty said:
I’ve set it up as a keyboard shortcut, and in an instant it splits the image into three curves layers inside a folder. I’m sure Blend If is accurate enough for a lot of things, I’ve just found this really helpful. I usually hit the mids at least and I’m not sure how I’d do that with blend modes. The other benefit is that once the masks have been generated, you can apply them to any other layer to e.g. drop saturation or add blue/cyan, but only to the shadows - just cmd+option drag the mask to any layer in your stack.
Click to expand...
have you got a before & after example?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top