Which Lencarta Lights to choose?

S

Steve-T

Suspended / Banned
Messages
525
Edit My Images
No
I am close to moving to the dark side and need a few gear tips.
Looking at setting up a small studio at home purely for product work but also want to be able to do some location lighting for portrait and general indoor lighting.
I always considered that for product photography (not talking pack shots) that at some point I will need powerful lights to enable small apertures for macro work and the like.
I was looking at Bowens 750 Gemini's with maybe 1 x 1000w/s.
However price wise the Lencartas are obviously much more attractive and seem to have a good reputation so my thought is now to go with Elite Pro 600's and then add a Bowens if and when I need it.

But will these be too powerful for portrait work? I have the chance of some corporate portraits to do soon with a company who will be forgiving whilst I practice a little.
I was thinking of adding either Safari's or Atoms to my shopping list. What do you think?
 
Product photography is a very wide field and needs vary, but normally 600ws will be far too much and won't adjust down low enough. 300ws per head will be ample and the same goes for portraits too.
This doesn't apply to outdoor shots where we're competing with the sun, that's why the Safari is so powerful.
 
I'm not sure you need that much power unless you're photographing really large items.

You have to remember that a speedlight gives a massive amount of power at Macro distances, 600Ws will give you f22 from a couple of metres at ISO 200. The flip side is that even with Smartflash's people have issues getting the power low enough for wide apertures.

If you have the budget go for the lower powered Elite Pro's and a selection of modifiers.

Outside: The Safari if you want to do battle with midday sun, for less than that the Atom's are great.

edit: cross posted - but at least we agree. :D

So either Garry isn't as smart as he'd have you believe, I'm not as daft as I look, or it was just a lucky guess.
 
Last edited:
I see what you both are saying re the 600's perhaps not being able to turn them down enough. Don't think I am contradicting you I'm not, it's just that the books I have read on the subject 'Lighting for Product Photography' by Allison Earnest being one of them are all talking about using powerful lights of sometimes 1000ws and above. Sometimes down to 600ws. These are not really on particularly large sets or items either. Sometimes these are directed at a scrim to bounce a reflection onto a black gloss surface.
I guess for the price of the Elite Pro 300's I could start with them for product work and they would double up as indoor portrait lights when power is available which would be most of the time. Then buy more powerful when I need them? Or maybe 2 x 300ws and one 600ws to satisfy my curiosity?
 
Garry and Phil are bang on about the power, when I was using some Bowens 500w heads I almost never needed to go over 250w so you will get a lot more use out of being able to go lower than you will higher. How you go about shooting dictates what you need, shooting small to medium sized items in a (relatively) small space means you definitely do not need much power whereas shooting large items in a large space with large modifiers or if you're fighting the sun means you need lots of power.

I've not read that book you're referring to but my guess would be she was using very large modifiers or long working distances which require more power and I'm guessing she was using a pack and head system which requires a lot of power as it gets divided by the number of heads you attach to it. That's pure assumption however.
 
Cheers Simon
One example was a shot of part of a black keyboard a card reafder and a memory card on a black glass surface. She uses monolights usually Hensel and in this example aprt from the bounced light they were 600ws gridded or with snoot for highlights and seperation. They are perhaps 1.2 metres from the subject. I realise that info probably doesn't mean a lot though out of context on here
 
Steve-T said:
Cheers Simon
One example was a shot of part of a black keyboard a card reafder and a memory card on a black glass surface. She uses monolights usually Hensel and in this example aprt from the bounced light they were 600ws gridded or with snoot for highlights and seperation. They are perhaps 1.2 metres from the subject. I realise that info probably doesn't mean a lot though out of context on here
Click to expand...
Nor does it give an indication of what the power was turned down to ;).

In the old day's high end studio photography was often done on 50 or 64 ISO film (sometimes 25), and studio's started at medium format and went up from that :eek:. So tiny apertures and slow films meant that 1000Ws studio heads were the norm. Nowadays we can all happily shoot at 200 ISO, and we're using smaller sensors, at close quarters; where f8 on a crop camera gives the same DoF as f32 did on medium format film. You can see how power requirements have plummeted over the last 20 years due to that.
 
Phil V said:
Nor does it give an indication of what the power was turned down to ;).

In the old day's high end studio photography was often done on 50 or 64 ISO film (sometimes 25), and studio's started at medium format and went up from that :eek:. So tiny apertures and slow films meant that 1000Ws studio heads were the norm. Nowadays we can all happily shoot at 200 ISO, and we're using smaller sensors, at close quarters; where f8 on a crop camera gives the same DoF as f32 did on medium format film. You can see how power requirements have plummeted over the last 20 years due to that.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm convinced ;)
 
I haven't used the 600s, but I did have a couple of elite pro 300 MK1 and I found them more than enough in smaller spaces, as has been said I sometimes couldn't get the power down low enough, so I'm guessing for product photography they would be plenty, I would go as far as to say the smartflash 200s would also be fine, unless we are talking big products i.e. cars etc
 
Steve-T said:
Okay, I'm convinced ;)
Click to expand...

There will be some occasions when you need high power, eg when using softboxes at some distance (say 2m) and need to shoot at f/22 for maximum depth of field, but those occasions will, probably, be relatively rare. But in a studio situation, ie with no significant ambient light, only normal room lights or modelling lamps that will have zero influence on the exposure, you can just crank up the ISO.

Going from ISO100 to 200 has the same effect on exposure as going from 200Ws to 400Ws on the flash. Raise it to ISO400 and your lights are giving the same exposure as 800Ws, and so on. Most modern cameras as very good at medium ISO settings and you'll hardly notice any difference between ISO100 and ISO400 say, even ISO800 will probably be very acceptable. I also use this little trick as a convenience for adjusting global exposure, rather than having to fiddle with individual lights.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Trickier than you might think. :D
Click to expand...
Yes Im under no illusions Phil, especially as long term I see a nearly black carbon racing bike on a black perspex background with the bike picked out with highlights.
I may try and light paint this in sections and stitch. I can also envision perhaps a coloured gel somewhere and smoke.
 
HoppyUK said:
There will be some occasions when you need high power, eg when using softboxes at some distance (say 2m) and need to shoot at f/22 for maximum depth of field, but those occasions will, probably, be relatively rare. But in a studio situation, ie with no significant ambient light, only normal room lights or modelling lamps that will have zero influence on the exposure, you can just crank up the ISO.

Going from ISO100 to 200 has the same effect on exposure as going from 200Ws to 400Ws on the flash. Raise it to ISO400 and your lights are giving the same exposure as 800Ws, and so on. Most modern cameras as very good at medium ISO settings and you'll hardly notice any difference between ISO100 and ISO400 say, even ISO800 will probably be very acceptable. I also use this little trick as a convenience for adjusting global exposure, rather than having to fiddle with individual lights.
Click to expand...

Sounds good, I use a D4s so not bad at high ISO. I will go with the 300's then, higher power can come as and when I find I need it
 
I've just sold the last of my Elinchrom Chic 2 flash generators, bought by someone in China, presumably because the studios in China tend to be massive and a lot of the commercial photography is still done on 5 x 4" or 10 x 8".
The whole point is that when I bought these units, which have 2,400Ws of power, I was shooting on these formats too. Normal operating aperture on 10 x 8 was f/90, and even with a couple of 2,400Ws generator flashes, I sometimes needed to build up the exposure with up to 8 pops. Digital photography and small formats has changed all that, as others have mentioned.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I've just sold the last of my Elinchrom Chic 2 flash generators, bought by someone in China, presumably because the studios in China tend to be massive and a lot of the commercial photography is still done on 5 x 4" or 10 x 8".
The whole point is that when I bought these units, which have 2,400Ws of power, I was shooting on these formats too. Normal operating aperture on 10 x 8 was f/90, and even with a couple of 2,400Ws generator flashes, I sometimes needed to build up the exposure with up to 8 pops. Digital photography and small formats has changed all that, as others have mentioned.
Click to expand...
Blimey! That puts my photography and lighting requirements in perspective! :D
It's easy to forget how the cameras many of us use today change the lighting power requirements along with them. That said, I still often use my 1500WS monolight, but not for tabletop stuff and often down at 500WS or so. :)
 
Garry Edwards said:
I've just sold the last of my Elinchrom Chic 2 flash generators, bought by someone in China, presumably because the studios in China tend to be massive and a lot of the commercial photography is still done on 5 x 4" or 10 x 8".
The whole point is that when I bought these units, which have 2,400Ws of power, I was shooting on these formats too. Normal operating aperture on 10 x 8 was f/90, and even with a couple of 2,400Ws generator flashes, I sometimes needed to build up the exposure with up to 8 pops. Digital photography and small formats has changed all that, as others have mentioned.
Click to expand...

And that, is a very good point and of course some of the product photographers' books I have read are still using film and these formats which would explain the power issues.

One final thought though, it has suggested to me that (cost aside) The Superfast versions of the light are more adjustable so can turn down as low as I may need (1.9ws on the 600 and 2.8 on the 300) if I were to go with a mix of these then I would have high power if I ever need it and hopefully as low as I need. I could also ND if I needed to go lower still? Also the fast recycling times would make freezing action for splash shots etc possible?
 
Steve-T said:
One final thought though, it has suggested to me that (cost aside) The Superfast versions of the light are more adjustable so can turn down as low as I may need (1.9ws on the 600 and 2.8 on the 300) if I were to go with a mix of these then I would have high power if I ever need it and hopefully as low as I need. I could also ND if I needed to go lower still? Also the fast recycling times would make freezing action for splash shots etc possible?
Click to expand...

Yes the SuperFast heads are more flexible but I wouldn't personally consider below 10w a huge issue as it's such a low output you can achieve much the same result by moving the head slightly further away.

You'll easily be able to freeze motion in the same way you would with a speedlight but the drawback is cost, if you don't need the large power adjustment range or short flash duration then it's money that could have been used elsewhere.
 
simonbarker said:
Yes the SuperFast heads are more flexible but I wouldn't personally consider below 10w a huge issue as it's such a low output you can achieve much the same result by moving the head slightly further away.

You'll easily be able to freeze motion in the same way you would with a speedlight but the drawback is cost, if you don't need the large power adjustment range or short flash duration then it's money that could have been used elsewhere.
Click to expand...
This^
If money were no object I'd have a set of the super fasts tomorrow, they're very versatile and their party trick is brilliant. But if buying the SF's means scrimping on the modifiers and other things, then the cheaper units are more than capable.
 
simonbarker said:
Yes the SuperFast heads are more flexible but I wouldn't personally consider below 10w a huge issue as it's such a low output you can achieve much the same result by moving the head slightly further away.

You'll easily be able to freeze motion in the same way you would with a speedlight but the drawback is cost, if you don't need the large power adjustment range or short flash duration then it's money that could have been used elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Agreed, except for the moving lights further away bit - because changing the distance affects the lighting effect as well as the effective power, so should never be used for that purpose.
Steve-T said:
And that, is a very good point and of course some of the product photographers' books I have read are still using film and these formats which would explain the power issues.
Click to expand...
And some of the books are just old and out of date.
Also, powerful flash heads of years ago were relatively inefficient, and needed to have a much higher nominal power (high W/s/joules) than today's more efficient heads.

There are a LOT of important factors to think about when choosing studio flash, but frankly for most people, most of the time, power just isn't one of them.
 
Steve, Have you read this?

Just noticed it's a new edition too
 
Phil V said:
Steve, Have you read this?

Just noticed it's a new edition too
Click to expand...
Phil V said:
Steve, Have you read this?

Just noticed it's a new edition too
Click to expand...

I have seen and contemplated this yes, but not the new edition which I have just ordered, thanks for pointing it out.
In case it is of interest I am going to this in a few days time http://www.bipp.com/Default.aspx?tabid=175&EventId=643 I thought it might be interesting, just think they may cram too many people in.

I am also considering a months trial of this https://www.photigy.com/ as they seem to have a good range of product courses.
 
Steve-T said:
I have seen and contemplated this yes, but not the new edition which I have just ordered, thanks for pointing it out.
In case it is of interest I am going to this in a few days time http://www.bipp.com/Default.aspx?tabid=175&EventId=643 I thought it might be interesting, just think they may cram too many people in.

I am also considering a months trial of this https://www.photigy.com/ as they seem to have a good range of product courses.
Click to expand...
My advice is not to over-complicate things by trying to learn too much too soon.
Light:Science and Magic is a very good cookbook, I suggest that you read that to understand the principles and just experient to learn how to apply that knowledge. Courses - even the good ones - have limited value unless you can make use of what's taught.
 
There's no denying the usefulness of a wide power range, though there are usually workarounds if needs be. One that's not been mentioned that I've used a couple of times is putting two (or more) softboxes together, that both doubles the power and also doubles the area of the light source.

A point worth noting that most manufacturers exaggerate the range of power output, with claims of say six stops (eg 1/1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32) but that is actually only a difference of five stops.
 
HoppyUK said:
There's no denying the usefulness of a wide power range, though there are usually workarounds if needs be. One that's not been mentioned that I've used a couple of times is putting two (or more) softboxes together, that both doubles the power and also doubles the area of the light source.

A point worth noting that most manufacturers exaggerate the range of power output, with claims of say six stops (eg 1/1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32) but that is actually only a difference of five stops.
Click to expand...
Yes, most do. But we don't.
 
HoppyUK said:
A point worth noting that most manufacturers exaggerate the range of power output, with claims of say six stops (eg 1/1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32) but that is actually only a difference of five stops.
Click to expand...

I hate to be that guy but it's not actually a claim as that is 6 stops...

In fairness it'd be less confusing if manufacturers stuck to the same phrasing.
 
simonbarker said:
I hate to be that guy but it's not actually a claim as that is 6 stops...

In fairness it'd be less confusing if manufacturers stuck to the same phrasing.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that many sellers (most of which are not in fact manufacturers) do in fact make that claim. And even if it isn't actually a claim, it certainly does seem to me to mislead people into believing that there are in fact 6 stops of adjustment when, in fact, there are only five.

"The *** features a bright 150w modelling lamp, and a 200Ws flash tube, that has a 6-stop power range (1/1 – 1/32 power)"
That's 5 stops of adjustment masquerading as 6, or at least it is if in fact it does adjust from full power to 1/32nd, but whether it does or not is another question.
 
simonbarker said:
I hate to be that guy but it's not actually a claim as that is 6 stops...

In fairness it'd be less confusing if manufacturers stuck to the same phrasing.
Click to expand...

By that logic, if you wanted an ND filter to reduce the exposure by two stops, you'd need one marked as three stops!
 
HoppyUK said:
By that logic, if you wanted an ND filter to reduce the exposure by two stops, you'd need one marked as three stops!
Click to expand...
Not the same though is it
An 2 stop ND filter will reduce whatever setting you are on by a full 2 stops.
To reduce power on a light by 5 stops then you need 6 stop positions, a bit like travelling from A to B to C - you only make two journeys but you have 3 locations ;)
 
Steve-T said:
Not the same though is it
An 2 stop ND filter will reduce whatever setting you are on by a full 2 stops.
To reduce power on a light by 5 stops then you need 6 stop positions, a bit like travelling from A to B to C - you only make two journeys but you have 3 locations ;)
Click to expand...

LOL I agree it can be confusing, but that's not how most people think about it. You're making two journeys, the starting point is non-optional, a fixed constant, so doesn't count.

Count your fingers. Do you get 11? Or 9 fingers and 3 thumbs! That makes 12.
 
Steve-T said:
Not the same though is it
An 2 stop ND filter will reduce whatever setting you are on by a full 2 stops.
To reduce power on a light by 5 stops then you need 6 stop positions, a bit like travelling from A to B to C - you only make two journeys but you have 3 locations ;)
Click to expand...
Surely then a more helpful (honest)? description than
Garry Edwards said:
has a 6-stop power range
Click to expand...
would be "has 5 stops of power adjustment (6 positions)
 
Steve-T said:
Probably, but how many gears does your car have? No doubt it could be argued that it has one less than that claimed because generally you have no choice but to start off in First?
Click to expand...

I always start mine in Neutral :P
 
Steve-T said:
I said 'start off' not start - there is a difference if we're being smart ;)
Click to expand...
But that's the point, the flash heads don't have a 'neutral', you start at the top or bottom.
 
i dont start in neutral very often - its almost always in gear - just start with the clutch depressed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top