Godox AD200

I thought ad200 was an odd addition to the goods line but I'll Defo be looking at them at the photography show this month if they have some samples....lots easier than the AD360 which in itself has been a major boon to location work over the last 15 months!
 
I thought ad200 was an odd addition to the goods line but I'll Defo be looking at them at the photography show this month if they have some samples....lots easier than the AD360 which in itself has been a major boon to location work over the last 15 months!

It kind of make sense because everything except the AD180 has been updated to have X1 integration, so they had a choice, direct replacement or something new and for me the something new wins easily

Mike
 
It kind of make sense because everything except the AD180 has been updated to have X1 integration, so they had a choice, direct replacement or something new and for me the something new wins easily

Mike
Hehe we all like new things :) and apart from a few duff battery issues with the AD360 it's been awesome and yet to miss a shot! The 200 being even less bits to carry and setup is going to be a bonus for run and gun situations where the 360 or 600 are a bit much, that's for sure [emoji16]
 
We're all guessing here ATM, but it does look as if the AD600BM is down on expected brightness and it's certainly true that the flash tube sits much further back into the mount than it should, kind of firing out of a tunnel. FWIW, my thinking is that the mount is blocking some of the light, but also in a double-diffuser softbox a lot of light is bounced straight back towards the flash tube where it gets tangled up and absorbed by the mechanism and lost down the tunnel, IYSWIM.

Perhaps along the same lines, when you fire a speedlight into a double-diffuser softbox, extending the zoom head setting not only increases the hotspot, but also actually reduces brightness. Guessing again, but maybe there's something similar going on there.

Gotta be honest, and it's maybe just me but I'm not really getting this about the recessed flash tube. In the AD600 the tube sits a good bit out from the mount imo as it goes forward as per the side view here https://www.amazon.co.uk/Godox-600W-Flash-Witstro-AD600BM/dp/B01C6XJIXS. Compared to my lencarta smartflash where the flash tubes sits flat with the mount https://www.lencarta.com/image/cache/catalog/products/images/fla019/smartflash3_bulbs-500x500.jpg or profotos design where it is recessed fully in the mount/built in reflector.

I'm not that knowledgeable on the technical aspects of flash designs but I don't really see how having a bit of the tube protector inside the mount would eat much light?
 
I'm not that knowledgeable on the technical aspects of flash designs but I don't really see how having a bit of the tube protector inside the mount would eat much light?

You need the light from the flash tube to hit surfaces of the reflector to bounce out and with the softbox I was using that looks like it is not happening and just measured some more softboxes that I have and 3cm throat depth is more standard than the 5cm I tested with so will re-test

Mike
 
I'm not that knowledgeable on the technical aspects of flash designs but I don't really see how having a bit of the tube protector inside the mount would eat much light?
We're quibbling over relatively minor things...
Just because something works, that doesn't mean it is "optimal." But that doesn't really matter much. What is optimal for one application may not be optimal for another, and a little light loss is fairly irrelevant as long as you still have enough.

I've never really understood Profoto's design choices with the B1 type style... except that it allows for "zooming" reflectors which is pretty cool IMO (but also potentially a disaster in terms of "evenness/efficiency")
 
I've never really understood Profoto's design choices with the B1 type style... except that it allows for "zooming" reflectors which is pretty cool IMO (but also potentially a disaster in terms of "evenness/efficiency")
Doesn't the Profoto mount allow "zooming" anway?
 
We're quibbling over relatively minor things...
Just because something works, that doesn't mean it is "optimal." But that doesn't really matter much. What is optimal for one application may not be optimal for another, and a little light loss is fairly irrelevant as long as you still have enough.

I've never really understood Profoto's design choices with the B1 type style... except that it allows for "zooming" reflectors which is pretty cool IMO (but also potentially a disaster in terms of "evenness/efficiency")

Yes, they're minor in the great scheme of things, but not when you're trying to accurately establish exactly how much light is being produced. When brightness is paramount, a couple of tenths might be difference between buy and not buy.

The more I think about this, the more likely it seems that there are a number of coincidental factors at play. Your earlier point about the parabolic shape is one, and in hindsight I was a bit dismissive of the parabolic reference (that I know you didn't mean literally) and glossed over the main point that that was perfectly valid. What could be happening here may be not so much a loss of light, but a redistribution of light. In other words, if brightness when measured on-axis goes down, that needs to be compared to off-axis brightness that may well have gone up. Even the best double-diffuser softboxes are brighter in the centre than around the edges.
 
The more I think about this, the more likely it seems that there are a number of coincidental factors at play
Yes, I think it is probably less of a light loss and more of a light distribution issue.
For instance, I have a Quantum telephoto reflector and bulb spacer I use with my AD360. If the bulb spacer is not used ("recessed" per design) the result is a ringlight/BD effect. And if it is used the result is a concentration of the light to ~ 1/2 diameter and 2x brightness. But even compared to the stock reflector I don't think there is any light loss/gain.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/skersting/albums/72157637091981416/with/10559307956/


I think that if you put any of these reflectors/mounts into a textured rear bounce type of softbox with adequate diffusion you would probably see very little difference.
 
Last edited:
So using a different modifier (an SMDV A90) we get some different results (again measured at 1m)

AD200 f11.7

AD360II f16.2
1/2 stop brighter than A200

AD600 f22.1
9/10 stop brighter than AD360II
1 4/10 stop brighter than AD200

The change of modifier has had a dramatic increase on the AD600 (gaining at least half a stop) whereas the ratio between AD200 and AD360II is about the same because I could position those where I wanted to in relation to the modifier collar

I then tried the Fresnel head on the AD200 vs the V860II (zoomed to widest)

AD200 f45.1
V860II f22.2

that makes the AD200 2 stops brighter or the equivalent of 4 V860IIs

Mike
 
What am I missing?

A90

S70


If anything I would expect the A90 measurement to be a little lower due to the larger area.


That is the improvement in placement/design that means the readings are the same i.e. we have gained from the mount design of the A90 and then lost that because of the increased size of the modifier

Mike
 
2.25x larger in area the loss should be more than 1 stop if completely even; more than doubling in output seems suspicious to me. But I suppose it's possible...

If you look at the change from 70 to 90 you will see that both the AD200 and AD360II lost about 1/2 stop
The AD600 however has stayed the same which on that basis means it has gained 1/2 a stop due to the design

Probably not testing in the best environment but test carried out in exactly the same way each time

Mike
 
2.25x larger in area the loss should be more than 1 stop if completely even; more than doubling in output seems suspicious to me. But I suppose it's possible...

Larger softboxes are not necessarily less bright - though usually they are, a bit, through extra absorbsion within the larger surfaces of the box. What matters is the angle of field coverage and it that remains the same, as it often does, then brightness stays the same too.
 
What matters is the angle of field coverage
I assume "field coverage" means evenness of fill?
That makes some sense as we are not talking about anything like a point light source or even total light leaving a reflector... we're talking more about light gathering/dispersion within a reflector design.

I know... fire the test softbox into a second larger softbox as a collector w/ the meter at the opening. That should give an approximately total light measure for comparing losses/inefficiencies of mounting/reflector/etc.
I don't know what good that information would really do for us though....
 
I assume "field coverage" means evenness of fill?
That makes some sense as we are not talking about anything like a point light source or even total light leaving a reflector... we're talking more about light gathering/dispersion within a reflector design.

I know... fire the test softbox into a second larger softbox as a collector w/ the meter at the opening. That should give an approximately total light measure for comparing losses/inefficiencies of mounting/reflector/etc.
I don't know what good that information would really do for us though....

No, 'field coverage' means the area of the subject/field illuminated by the light, and the rate of fall-off. That's what mostly defines brightness at a given power output with similar types of modifier, much less than than the sheer size, eg the zoom head setting on a speedlight.

Your suggestion of putting two softboxes together face to face and firing the flash at one end and measuring it at the other, is a very good one. It's broadly the basis of my own brightness test rig - collect every drop of light, let none of it escape or get lost in shadowy nooks and crannies, allow it spread out and homogenise, then funnel everything down for a really accurate measurement.

It's not quite as easy as that, and I'm now on my Mk3 version having just purchased two new softboxes for the specific purpose of modifying into a custom rig. The main difficulty I have though is the rig must be dead accurate for all types and fittings of flash unit, from speedlights to studio strobes and everything inbetween. My previous versions actually have been, but the new one will be both easier and also sort the occasional odd-ball like the AD600.
 
Last edited:
No, 'field coverage' means the area of the subject/field illuminated by the light, and the rate of fall-off.
Modifiers of the same shape/design will have (essentially) the same field coverage when used from the same distance. The larger modifier is less bright per area, but it also has to spread less to generate the same field coverage, so there's less lost to the ISL. As you said, total light tends to remain relatively constant.
It's not quite as easy as that
You need to make yourself a large integrating sphere... :)
 
Last edited:
View attachment 97446 View attachment 97447

Think you might spot some of the differences, A90 mount left, S 70 mount right

Mike

Thought - can you reverse the speedring? Or fit the mount adapter from the inside facing out? Not sure it's possible with those particular softboxes, but some you can.

With the speedring I have in my hand both options are possible, that would move the flash unit forward either 13mm or 16mm and might resolve things if it's the position within the softbox that's causing problems, but maybe not if it's simply the mount getting in the way.
 
Last edited:
Thought - can you reverse the speedring? Or fit the mount adapter from the inside facing out? Not sure it's possible with those particular softboxes, but some you can.

With the speedring I have in my hand both options are possible, that would move the flash unit forward either 13mm or 16mm and might resolve things if it's the position within the softbox that's causing problems, but maybe not if it's simply the mount getting in the way.


Too much engineering required with that one, never bought for use with the AD600 anyway so not an issue, but good to find in testing
 
Last edited:
I keep hoping this is going to bring a glut of used AD-180 and AD-360 units onto the market..
 
Out of interest, at the Photo Show at the NEC, where would one be likely to find Godox kit to try out?
Look on the Lencarta and Photomart stands
 
New kit then Garry ?
 
Just ordered a pair... and the X1T with an XTR-16 for my AD360.
Now I just have to decide if I'm going to sell off a couple of my speedlights. I'll probably unload most of them and just keep one SB800... I could probably mount an AD200 on a hotshoe ballhead and not really even need to keep the SB800... hmm...
 
Last edited:
Just ordered a pair... and the X1T with an XTR-16 for my AD360.
Now I just have to decide if I'm going to sell off a couple of my speedlights. I'll probably unload most of them and just keep one SB800... I could probably mount an AD200 on a hotshoe ballhead and not really even need to keep the SB800... hmm...

Kit comes with a ball mount

Mike
 
Back
Top