Godox AD600 and the bulb recess issue

[Scooter]

Someone may find this useful or maybe just interesting. Remember Godox's first go at the AD600? They seemed to forget to factor in any kind of mount for modifiers and then slapped on a Bowens mount which was then apparently too far forward, meaning the flash tube was too recessed into any modifier you cared to attach to the light.

Well, I needed another portable 600J light and there's no way I'm paying £700 for the current offering with its proprietary mount, so I bought a very lightly used AD600BM via eBay. I figured someone must have addressed the recessed bulb issue by now and sure enough, a company called Turtlerig in the USA sells a bulb spacer, so I bought one.

Last week I tested the light, with and without the spacer, with 3 different 7" reflectors and a 120cm octa-box. For these tests, the meter was 2m away, and the light was fired on full power. I took several readings, moving the meter around the centre spot, and took the median value in each case. Here are the results:-

Modifier	Without Spacer	With Spacer
Coreflash D300 reflector	f/20	f/16
Lencarta SF600 reflector	f/20	f/14
Godox "cone" reflector	f/22	f/14
120cm Octa	f/13	f/13

Here are the light patterns generated by the reflectors with and without the spacer, and a heavily underexposed image of the soft-box with contrast enhanced to show the pattern (processing synced between both soft-box front images). Bulb flash images were taken at reduced power - 1/64 + a third.

Modifier	Without Spacer	With Spacer
Bulb position
Bulb flash
Coreflash D300 reflector
Lencarta SF600 reflector
Godox Cone reflector
120cm Octa image

The cone reflector results are noticeably different. This highly polished reflector is one of those marketing maximizers for LED lights and it came with an SL200 LED light. It has a hotspot in the middle. Notice how this is pretty much eliminated by moving the bulb forward, suggesting it is no longer in the place it should be (the hot spot is desirable for this reflector as it allows better numbers for the marketing brochure). Adding the spacer also seems to have introduced a dark crescent on the bottom left with this modifier. The rest are just dimmer as far as I can tell from these tests.

The softbox front panel appears to have better coverage with the bulb further forward, and, from these results, I think this is the only real advantage of adding the spacer. Overall, light output is reduced by around 1 stop, except when used with a large softbox. The light patterns are worse, or more or less the same: just dimmer. On the whole, my conclusion is the bulb on the AD600B is actually in the right place, for most purposes, but you might consider adding a spacer if you use it with a softbox a lot, and you're striving for the most even light across the front panel.

 

[sirch]

Thanks Owen, we really appreciate you taking the time to put together these detailed and very helpful posts

 

[Sky]

Although I don't use the 600, I do use mostly Godox stuff, so it's good to see someone making the effort to test these things out.

Keep up the good work.

 

[jknights]

Very useful post.
I have two Godox AD600BM units.
How much were the spacers? What do they look like?

 

[jknights]

OK found them.
DPReview did a product launch info.

TurtleRig launches latest versions of its Bulb Extensions for Flashpoint/Godox strobes

The bulb extensions move the flash bulb forward 32mm (1.25in) to create stronger, more even lighting when used with select light modifiers.

www.dpreview.com

 

[Scooter]

OK found them.
DPReview did a product launch info.

TurtleRig launches latest versions of its Bulb Extensions for Flashpoint/Godox strobes

The bulb extensions move the flash bulb forward 32mm (1.25in) to create stronger, more even lighting when used with select light modifiers.

www.dpreview.com

Yes, that's it. In most cases though, the light output is reduced and not as even with these fitted. They are about £30 shipped to the UK, from amazon.com

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07SQWL8CF?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details

 

[Garry Edwards]

This is an interesting topic, and many thanks for raising it and for posting such detailed findings.

The real question is this:

Why did Godox produce this flash with a badly-flawed design in the first place? I really don’t know, but I think that there are a range of possibilities.

1. Setting the flash tube so far back was cheaper, it enabled them to use existing parts
2. It produced a higher output, and the vast majority of their customers would be impressed by a higher guide number.
3. At least 80% of their customers would be satisfied with the performance for at least 80% of the time
4. They didn’t make focussing spotlights, Fresnel spotlights or Beauty Dishes (which require the flash tube to be in the optimal position). These are niche products, and large manufacturers only concern themselves with mainline customer needs.
5. Like all successful manufacturers, they are marketing-driven, not performance-driven. The vast majority of their customer base is impressed with specifications, marketing bullet points, design, light weight, quality of finish, not performance, so performance doesn’t matter.
6. They are engineers and marketeers, not photographers. They know a great deal about engineering and marketing, but they know almost nothing about photography.

And, in more detail:

1. All manufacturers try to use common parts, it’s much cheaper than designing and making specialist parts. Car manufacturers are perhaps the best known for this, but everyone does it.
2. The buying public is over-impressed by specifications (whether they actually understand them or not) and spec statements such as colour temperature and guide numbers seem to be the most impressive, so it makes sense to provide “good” specs, and setting the flash tube so far back increased the guide number by maximising the reflective efficiency of their reflectors. Godox are in fact one of the better manufacturers in this respect, their figures are in fact pretty accurate – some others just publish lies – and although Godox test for guide numbers in a flawed testing environment (small room with white walls and ceiling) the public can achieve those figures when shooting in their typical living room, it’s only when the lights are used in a professional studio that the figures become obviously wrong.
3. The 80% rule is pretty standard. If at least 80% of the customers are happy with the product then the others don’t matter
4. See above. And, to add to this, none of their early reflectors could accept honeycombs, and many of their current ones can’t either. But, at least 80% of their customer base don’t use honeycombs.
5. See above.
6. This applies to nearly all manufacturers, in fact, there are very, very few lighting manufacturers who either understand or care about photography, there were a few in the past but most have now gone bust. Manufacturers do use photographers to promote their products – but they often choose badly – and they don’t care about the views of those photographers.

Coming back to this mod, I suppose that it has its uses, but the manufacturer seems to have made some false claims about it.

 

[Scooter]

They didn’t make focusing spotlights, Fresnel spotlights, or Beauty Dishes (which require the flash tube to be in the optimal position). These are niche products, and large manufacturers only concern themselves with mainline customer needs.

I feel another set of tests coming on: Fresnel, various projection attachments, and a beauty dish.

See above. And, to add to this, none of their early reflectors could accept honeycombs, and many of their current ones can’t either. But, at least 80% of their customer base don’t use honeycombs.

Yeah - the SF600 reflectors do accept honeycombs, but they are very loose. This is the only reason I keep those old CFD reflectors around: they hold up to two honeycombs really well. The art of "not lighting everything" seems lost on a whole slew of photographers, and studio owners who paint all their walls white.

Why did Godox produce this flash with a badly-flawed design in the first place?

I'm not so sure it's that bad! Certainly, with 7" reflectors, it works just fine as is: moving the bulb to the "correct" position just makes it dimmer - it doesn't seem to improve the lighting pattern for the reflector dishes., and only makes a marginal difference with a soft-box. I suspect some of this is due to a happy accident, whereby, for the reasons you identified around cost and re-use, they not only put the bulb back a bit but adopted a curly tube rather than the traditional horse-shoe shape, which has pushed part of the tube forward again.

Coming back to this mod, I suppose that it has its uses, but the manufacturer seems to have made some false claims about it.

Yep - the one thing it does not do is "create stronger, more even lighting" with any modifier tested so far. Slightly more even in a large softbox perhaps, but not stronger. The other downside I didn't mention is that with the tube further forward, you can no longer use the protective cover. It also obscures the modelling light.

 

[juggler]

Useful, thanks!

It's worth noting that bulb position isn't the only difference between the 600Pro and the 600BM: the Pro recycles *much* faster, something like 1s vs 2.5s at full power.

Yeah - the SF600 reflectors do accept honeycombs, but they are very loose. This is the only reason I keep those old CFD reflectors around: they hold up to two honeycombs really well.

I have a heap of different 7" dishes and honeycombs, all virtually the same size. I'm lucky if I hit on a combination which holds even one honeycomb securely. One of my jobs for tomorrow is to sort through them and keep only those which actually work.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Useful, thanks!

It's worth noting that bulb position isn't the only difference between the 600Pro and the 600BM: the Pro recycles *much* faster, something like 1s vs 2.5s at full power.


I have a heap of different 7" dishes and honeycombs, all virtually the same size. I'm lucky if I hit on a combination which holds even one honeycomb securely. One of my jobs for tomorrow is to sort through them and keep only those which actually work.

The standard internal lip size for a honeycomb reflector (in old money) is 7" so the standard size for a honeycomb is a fraction under that. I did once manage to get Godox to design a reflector that actually accepts honeycombs properly, with an extra deep lip that can take two honeycombs together.

 

[juggler]

The standard internal lip size for a honeycomb reflector (in old money) is 7" so the standard size for a honeycomb is a fraction under that. I did once manage to get Godox to design a reflector that actually accepts honeycombs properly, with an extra deep lip that can take two honeycombs together.

Is it still available? How can I distinguish it from all the other crud?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Sadly no, or at least not on the Lencarta website - another victim of the 80% rule. People didn't buy it so it seems to have been discontinued. I've looked around at other sellers and can't find it there either.

But, if you ring Lencarta and ask for Mike, tell him that I told you to nag him and that you want the special honeycomb reflector which, purely from memory, was called the MOD044, or may have been MOD046. Last time I was at their warehouse there were some left on a shelf.

 

[Scooter]

Useful, thanks!

It's worth noting that bulb position isn't the only difference between the 600Pro and the 600BM: the Pro recycles *much* faster, something like 1s vs 2.5s at full power.


I have a heap of different 7" dishes and honeycombs, all virtually the same size. I'm lucky if I hit on a combination which holds even one honeycomb securely. One of my jobs for tomorrow is to sort through them and keep only those which actually work.

Yes - it is very slow to recycle at full power - I had to enable the buzzer to ensure it was fully charged for each test...

 

[mike weeks]

I bought one of the turtlerig devices when they first came out and said there was no benefit

I too feel that like all designs there are compromises made but the AD600 is certainly not badly designed

Mike