Backscatter.com Strobe Comparison

[james 0]

With all the talk about strobes, I was pleased to see that Berkley White has posted some strobe comparison measurements. He measured the power of the strobes (in the center of the beam) but also the submerged weight of the strobes. Good info!

 

http://www.backscatter.com/learn/article/article.php?ID=40

 

Cheers

James

[seagrant 4]

Thanks James,

 

Yes very pleased, Berkley did a great comparison here and I'd trust it.

 

I'm so glad he is pushing (as he has been for some time) for more buoyancy to be designed into strobes, etc. But he did tell me that consumers have to request this too, people tend to buy small without knowing or thinking about the consequences underwater.

 

I'm disappointed the YS-250 is not positive or at least neutral. Very disappointed.

 

I'd like to get some strobes for real w/a (I have the 110s but they aren't quite adequate for some things I do); anyway looks like I'd only consider used YS-350s now or Ike 200s.

 

Again Thanks James and Berkley, this was extremely helpful,

 

Best, Carol

 

PS - as some of you know I use the Patima BC x 2 plus a bit of corecell foam on my arms with Subal ND20/Sea & Sea 110s/regular ULCS arms etc. It works really well for me for getting the entire system lighter and tweaking different configurations from 105vr + TCs to 16mm wide angle, etc. But I certainly wouldn't add a new strobe that was even heavier than the Sea and Sea 110s (which are slightly buoyant).

[herbko 0]

Good information. It looks like it's true that the Z-240 is significantly brighter than the DS-125 at least at the center. The weight information is very welcomed. Although, it's an important consideration, there are advantages to small strobes. Smaller size sometimes give you more freedom in strobe placement.

 

If you asked me the question: where would you add volume to your setup to make it more buoyant, I probably would not choose to increase the size of my strobes.

[jarhed 0]

If you asked me the question: where would you add volume to your setup to make it more buoyant. I probably would not choose to increase the size of my strobes.

 

I hope that I'm not pushing the thread into an unwanted direction, but I tend to value small size over buoyancy. I would like a more buoyant system, but need a smaller system due to my travel habits.

In general, I also value strobe power over buoyancy.

 

This is why I chose the very compact S&S DX200 housing even though it's very negative.

 

However to the point that Carol makes, be an informed buyer and knowing what th trade offs are is just being a smart consumer. To this end, the strobe review is another valuable source.

 

Take care,

John

[loftus 42]

Only problem is that compact size means less buoyancy. If you have to add stuff to add buoyancy, then that means more stuff to pack. Probably comes out the same in the end. One advantage of my Subtronics is that they are positively buoyant so they make my rig lighter in the water.

[seagrant 4]

The weight information is very welcomed. Although, it's an important consideration, there are advantages to small strobes. Smaller size sometimes give you more freedom in strobe placement.

 

If you asked me the question: where would you add volume to your setup to make it more buoyant, I probably would not choose to increase the size of my strobes.

 

Herbko, very right you are.

 

I'm talking about adding another pair of strobes, just for wide angle. The Sea and Sea 110s I have are adequate for macro and as you say easy to place and not too heavy. But they aren't too good for w/a in my experience.

 

 

I hope that I'm not pushing the thread into an unwanted direction, but I tend to value small size over buoyancy. I would like a more buoyant system, but need a smaller system due to my travel habits.

In general, I also value strobe power over buoyancy.

 

This is why I chose the very compact S&S DX200 housing even though it's very negative.

 

However to the point that Carol makes, be an informed buyer and knowing what th trade offs are is just being a smart consumer. To this end, the strobe review is another valuable source.

 

Take care,

John

 

John, no you are not pushing this thread in any unwanted direction at all and very well said. You and many never need to worry about this but soft tissue muscle strain injuries from carrying a negative housing underwater are a real problem to those unlucky enough to be hit with them (myself included......); and I also know some guys who have had problems. Its one of those things you probably never think of unless it happens to "you". Myself in great pain and not being able to write at all with my right hand for a few months last year was pretty surprising as I'd never had anything like that happen to me before. The negative housing was a major player in the injury as I was using it tons - but per my physical therapist biking also influenced the hand injury.

 

My injury is better now but I'm really careful!!! (Don't want that to happen again for sure!) And I keep my housings nice and light underwater as injury underwater can also lead to additional complications to divers (pressure related).

 

Maybe someone will come up with a housing/strobes someday that is both small and light but that doesn't exist now. So I vote for light (albeit larger); but as was stated strobes shouldn't be so big that you can't place them for macro.

 

Thanks for your responses and thanks again to Berkley for his very helpful report.

 

Best, Carol

Edited September 13, 2007 by seagrant

[scorpio_fish 5]

You and many never need to worry about this but soft tissue muscle strain injuries from carrying a negative housing underwater are a real problem to those unlucky enough to be hit with them (myself included......);

 

Not only that but a severely negative housing is hard to hold steady for macro and especially difficult for 1-handed shooting.

 

Anyone else puzzled by the DS125 and DS51 having the same guide number in testing? I know the coverage and fall-off are significantly different, but I feel like the DS125 is far more powerful than the DS51 in my experience.

[loftus 42]

It would be interesting to get some manufacturer input on this thread. Why are they so way off in their specs, and should we be able to return a strobe with a refund if they do not put out the light they advertise.

[james 0]

Scorpio,

 

The DS125 in my opinion puts out far more light than a ds51 (I have both now) but in not in a tight square pattern. The pattern from the DS125 is really broad and even - which is awesome in a compact wideangle strobe. I used the DS51 in the pool the other day and if you take a photo of the bottom of a dark pool you can really see the square pattern well.

 

RE the buoyancy of a housing - most housings are negative w/ a macro port setup and pretty much neutral w/ a dome and WA strobes. Even my big Seacam is just about perfect w/ the dome and 2X DS200's. The problem is the macro kit where you're having to hold it up steady for any length of time to focus.

 

My solution is a faired (shaped) buoyancy collar. To me this is the way to go: easy to pack, light, and only used when needed, so I don't have to have the extra bulk on the housing when shooting WA.

 

 

Cheers

James

 

[edited typo]

[seagrant 4]

James,

 

Your buoyancy collar for macro solution is awesome! I also use a buoyancy collar that Ryan Canon made for me for use with the 105vr - but it can't be as thick as yours because of the focus knob configuration on the Subal 105vr port.

 

But my wide angle unlike yours: 8" dome port/16mm lens/Subal ND20/d200/4X 8" ULCS arms and 2X Sea and Sea 110 strobes is 3-3/4 lbs negative in fresh water (I weighed it underwater and piece by piece in comparison). If I add the Fix focus light it is 4 lbs negative plus and that is for the wide angle!!!

 

I can handle the camera/ND20 for use without the strobes and ultralight arms and add one of my Patima BC floats to buoy it up for under/overs. It is negative but not too without the strobes and strobe arms/clamps.

 

But with the strobes and arms and macro it is really negative. With the 105vr and 2X TC well lets just say I'm pumping up those Patima BCs! Can't get enough corecell on that ND20 alone for the 105vr. So with the 105vr etc I use 2X Patima floats, a little corecell on 2 of the arms and the buoyancy ring that Ryan made me. It is very light and balanced that way - spread out in different areas of the housing - and surprisingly less bulky than long and fat buoyancy arms, etc.

 

But wow would some YS-350 strobes help me out underwater!!! Or a housing that isn't so negative but most of the d200 housings are quite negative some even more than mine.

 

Thanks a lot for the post James, Best Carol

Edited September 13, 2007 by seagrant

[IMSushi 0]

Anyone know if the buoyancy tests the Berkley did with the strobes was with or without batteries?? Obviously, this could affect the buotancy greatly! I read the article and never came across this information.

[sgietler 1]

in the article, he says

 

Weight (strobe head with batteries)

 

so I assume the tests are with the batteries...

 

scott

[bobf 0]

For quick comparison.......

 

Underwater weights of strobes according to the manufacturers published specs along with Backscatter's findings, translated from pounds to grams for consistency (454g=1 lb) (28g= 1oz), in parenthesis.

 

S&S 110 10g buoyant (59g buoyant)

S&S 250 80g buoyant (113g neg)

S&S 350 300g buoyant (254g buoyant)

 

INON 240 75g neg (59g neg)

 

Ikelite DS 51 NA (86g neg)

Ikelite DS 125 142g neg (113g neg)

Ikelite DS 200 NA (27g neg)

 

 

As pointed out in the article, Backscatter's research done in fresh water. Not sure what kind of water the manufacturers weighed their strobes in.

 

As far as the question regarding batteries or not......I'll go out on a soft coral limb and strongly suggest that strobes with dedicated packs were indeed weighed with batteries installed. INON states in their literature that underwater weight includes 4 NIMH batteries.....

 

Only major weight discrepancy that I see is in the difference between the article's findings and the "official" S&S 250PRO specs.......according to S&S that model is positive underwater whereas in the article it is stated by Backscatter to be negative..........

[james 0]

The weight will also depend upon the mounting system used. My guess is the manufacturer weights do not include an Ultralight ball or anything like that. I bet Berk weighed them w/ mounting hardware included but that's an assumption.

 

Cheers

James

[scorpio_fish 5]

Scorpio,

 

The DS125 in my opinion puts out far more light than a ds51 (I have both now) but in not in a tight square pattern. The pattern from the DS125 is really broad and even - which is awesome in a compact wideangle strobe. I used the DS51 in the pool the other day and if you take a photo of the bottom of a dark pool you can really see the square pattern well.

 

I still think the DS125 is hotter even in the center.

 

most housings are negative w/ a macro port setup and pretty much neutral w/ a dome and WA strobes.

 

Not my experience. I just did a trip with an Aquatica with dome and four of the new fangled buoyancy arm sections and the unit was still negative. Deb's Ikelite housing with Ike dome and 2 DS51's with two positively buoyant arms was still negative. My Subal ND2 was also plenty negative with dome port.

 

One fellow divers Titan, which weighs 40 kilos out of the water, was perfectly neutral with a dome port.

[loftus 42]

One fellow divers Titan, which weighs 40 kilos out of the water, was perfectly neutral with a dome port.

40 kilos? How does he lift it off the deck?

Edited September 13, 2007 by loftus

[herbko 0]

One way to compare the strobes is to look at the bang you get for the weight in air of the strobe. I think higher GN/weight is better and it's better to make buoyancy adjustments in places other than the strobe. Of course you have to take into consideration the width of the beam and it's uniformity.

 

It does seem clear from theory and practice that you paid at least a factor of 2 in output power/weight for the redder color output of the Ike strobes.

[Arnon_Ayal 1]

What I missing in this comparison, is an image of the light circle as in the modeling lights comparison that was here also, this can give you a lot of info about the light spread and the overall performance of the strobe.

And of course I would like to see the SB 105 in this comparison.

[JimDeck 2]

The weight will also depend upon the mounting system used. My guess is the manufacturer weights do not include an Ultralight ball or anything like that. I bet Berk weighed them w/ mounting hardware included but that's an assumption.

 

Cheers

James

 

Hey everyone,

 

The strobes were all tested without third party mounting hardware (i.e., Ultralight adapters, etc.), but if there was hardware that comes with the strobe (i.e., Sea and Sea fix bolt) it was included. Basically, if it came with the strobe, it was included with the test.

 

All strobes were tested with batteries. In the case of strobes that take AA batteries, (i.e., YS-110, Z240, etc.) they were tested with rechargeable NiMH batteries.

 

Best regards,

Jim

[UWphotoNewbie 1]

The DS125 in my opinion puts out far more light than a ds51 (I have both now) but in not in a tight square pattern. The pattern from the DS125 is really broad and even - which is awesome in a compact wideangle strobe. I used the DS51 in the pool the other day and if you take a photo of the bottom of a dark pool you can really see the square pattern well.

 

 

This is a great comparison. Its nice to have this data and thanks for spending the time to put this up.

 

The problem with the data as Jim points out on the site is that guide number is a horrible measure. Guide number without coverage ange can't tell you the power of the strobe. This is why the DS125 and DS 51 are the same guide number in the center. As soon as you spread the beam you need a lot more power to keep the guide number up. It would be nice to see a guide number measurement at 45, 60 and 80 degrees from the center as well.

 

The other metrics that are important are number of full power flashes and recycle time. These are two areas that the DS125 does well in. These are important for digital TTL as well as for the large capacity of cards these days.

 

As soon as you give us something valuable (as was this review) we are sure to ask for more. Keep up the good work.

[craig 0]

Guide numbers specify the brightness of the strobe, that's all. Beam pattern is obviously also important. A wider strobe is not brighter when the guide number says it's not, and a higher guide number doesn't mean that a strobe is narrow or hot in the center. A guide number specifies one thing only and it specifies it well. Measuring "in the center of the beam" is appropriate for determining guide numbers and it does not disadvantage any manufacturer to do so.

 

I'm sure the tests were performed properly but I'd suspect they were done in air. A strobe's beam pattern can only be accurately tested in water and, because of this, a strobe with a smooth beam pattern could give an inaccurate reading in air. The water/strobe interface will bend the strobe light differently than it does in air and that may effect readings depending on the design of the strobe.

 

One thing that the tests do show is that the Z-240 is not heavy in water as some claim that it is. In salt water, a Z-240 is heavy enough to sink when let go but it is almost impossible to feel it in your hand. I'd say an ounce negative at worst. What makes the Inon heavier is the ball adapter and clamp. When a Sea & Sea adapter and YS arm is used, they are lighter.

 

I'm glad the Inon isn't positive. A strobe that floats is useless as a drop strobe. The biggest problem with strobe bouyancy, at least with Inons, is the heavy armset.

[BoatMoney 0]

Guide numbers specify the brightness of the strobe, that's all.

For me, only in terms of comparison or buying based on spec is GN an important measurement. But it is only as important as knowing the falloff, in f-stops, from the center of the beam to the edge of the manufacturer's claimed angle of coverage. My bet is that if most of the small digital strobes we use were measured in this way and limited to a 1 stop fall-off, their angle of coverage would be a lot more narrow than the 90-100 degrees most claim.

 

This is why I still shoot with SS200's for wide angle. The GN difference from the Z240's might be minimal, but it still feels, and looks in the resulting images, that the SS200s hold much more brightness at the edges. I suspect the Z240's fall-off significantly from the center to the edge of their claimed 100 degree AOC. I love the Z240's but they do place an earlier limit on wide angle options than do the SS200's. I shoot Z240 for macro and SS200 for WA.

 

As far as weight goes, the only thing that matters to me is baggage weight. I find that much more of an impact than I do the bouyancy level underwater. I wish I could leave the SS200's home, for this reason, but I still haven't found a lightweight (in air) strobe that does the same job underwater.

[craig 0]

Yes, no doubt beam pattern is an important consideration and guide number says nothing about it. People imply, though, that high guide numbers with certain strobes are somehow evidence that they have poor beam patterns when compared to other strobes. It seems that nothing is more rejected than a strobe test. Yes, it is possible that some strobes simply outperform others and, yes, guide numbers are an effective, important, objective measurement given they are compared properly.

 

What makes you suspect that a Z240's light falloff is substantially more or different for its claimed angle of coverage than other strobes? The digital diver strobe test contained pictures of an Inon strobe pattern compared to a DS-125 and there was no clear evidence that its beam pattern was worse or even usably different. That test may have flaws but it's still the best effort made so far and the new Backscatter test doesn't offer different results. Frankly, I think a carpeted trunk is more revealing of beam pattern irregularities than an underwater image will be.

 

There are active threads here discussing specifically the use of Inon strobes with 180 degree fisheye lenses and images are posted. I did some testing recently with that configuration as well and was diving with a photo pro that was using 180 FE with twin Inons. If he wasn't getting coverage then he probably wouldn't be using them.

 

Considering the dramatic difference in travel weight between 200's and Z240's, you can easily consider diving with 3 or even 4 Z240's for less weight. I dove with quad Inons on my last trip and it was easy and fun. The advantage of 3 or 4 smaller strobes is more flexibility should strobe failures occur. If you are travelling with 3 Z240s for macro and 3 200s for wide then you are paying a heavy price for that flexibility.

 

One thing I find interesting is how much value people place on a circular strobe tube and a perfectly round beam pattern, ignoring the fact that they use multiple strobes offset from the lens and their resultant images are rectangular. The subjects are rarely anywhere near round anyway.

[BoatMoney 0]

What makes you suspect that a Z240's light falloff is substantially more or different for its claimed angle of coverage than other strobes?

My comment was in regard to the edge performance between the 200 and Z240. The Z240 definately suffers more falloff, respective to it's center brightness, than the SS200's do.

 

The digital diver strobe test contained pictures of an Inon strobe pattern compared to a DS-125 and there was no clear evidence that its beam pattern was worse or even usably different. That test may have flaws but it's still the best effort made so far and the new Backscatter test doesn't offer different results. Frankly, I think a carpeted trunk is more revealing of beam pattern irregularities than an underwater image will be.

I base my judgements on real world underwater performance. But I realize test patterns are fun to use as a talking point.

 

I did some testing recently with that configuration as well and was diving with a photo pro that was using 180 FE with twin Inons. If he wasn't getting coverage then he probably wouldn't be using them.

I dislike responding to this kind of rationale because it ends up sounding rude, but, I seldom default to what pros find acceptable or unacceptable. To go back to my original comment: What is coverage? Where does coverage end? Is it 1 f-stop down from center, is it 2...or 3. At what point does one decide that the edge of coverage is within the image or outside the image? Is your pro's coverage the same as your coverage or my coverage?

 

Considering the dramatic difference in travel weight between 200's and Z240's, you can easily consider diving with 3 or even 4 Z240's for less weight.

No I can't I like handheld single strobe shooting from time to time, so SS200 and backup is necessary.

[craig 0]

My comment was in regard to the edge performance between the 200 and Z240. The Z240 definately suffers more falloff, respective to it's center brightness, than the SS200's do.

I don't think that the 200 being wider than the Z240 should come as a surprise considering its 3x weight , 1/2 cycles per charge, larger battery, its lack of superior brightness and identical recycle times. It *has* to do something better, right? Does anyone dispute that the 200 is a wider strobe? Backscatter did not test beam pattern. Ultimately, you have to set correct exposure based on ambient conditions and strobe power. Beam pattern is useless for that; guide number is what you need to know.

 

I base my judgements on real world underwater performance. But I realize test patterns are fun to use as a talking point.

You prefer handwaving to measuring? What test charts are you referring to? Aren't the ones without objective data the ones with the talking points?

 

I dislike responding to this kind of rationale because it ends up sounding rude, but, I seldom default to what pros find acceptable or unacceptable. To go back to my original comment: What is coverage? Where does coverage end? Is it 1 f-stop down from center, is it 2...or 3. At what point does one decide that the edge of coverage is within the image or outside the image? Is your pro's coverage the same as your coverage or my coverage?

Yes, we know there's no standard for specifying beam pattern. You haven't defined one either nor have you quantified the differences you say exist. It's generally accepted that the Ike 200 is very wide. Is the DS-125 wider than the Z240? It's rated by Ike to have the same beam width as the DS-200.

 

He was not "my pro" BTW but I suspect his standards for lighting quality are every bit as good as yours or mine and I doubt he'd be using them if they weren't doing the job. If he were taking the same shot as you or me, his coverage requirements would likely be the same. It's not that mysterious a process.

 

No I can't I like handheld single strobe shooting from time to time, so SS200 and backup is necessary.

I'm willing to consider any technique that might be better than what I've done before. I also trust objective testing because it's far more reliable than gut feel. I'm curious to know why you believe a superwide strobe is required when using a single handheld. What look are you hoping to get that requres superwide coverage in a single, handheld strobe that can't be achieved by mounting that strobe on an arm?

 

One thing is certain is that, every time strobes are discussed, someone will inevitably claim that Ike strobes are better and Inons are unsuitable for wide angle use. I don't have a problem with the Ike 200, it's the only Ike strobe I'd consider using, but I do have a problem with the insinuations that Inon strobes are somehow cheating to get their superior guide numbers. It has nothing to do with measuring down the middle.