Godox V1 - worth the extra or just gimmick?

Tulipone

Tulipone

Messages
2,854
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Started to look for options to add a flash and saw this option. It is significantly more than other choices, similar brand and would be interested in your thoughts. It seems you can options, barn doors, snoots etc but with my lack of experience would how effective these would be directly on a flash. I'd rather have less kit - and lighting soft box - so Better to spend a bit more on this?

www.photospecialist.co.uk

Godox Speedlite V1 Fujifilm Kit

De Godox V1 is een krachtige reportageflitser, die dankzij de ronde flitskop een zachte en gelijk verdeelde belichting aan jouw foto's geeft. De ronde kop geeft jouw flitslicht een natuurlijke uitstraling over het gehele bereik, van rand tot rand.
www.photospecialist.co.uk www.photospecialist.co.uk
 
IMHO
Adding small modifiers to speedlights was frustrating and pointless when they were fiddly to attach, and they’re no less so when the system is magnetic and elegant.

But just like people who were convinced the Fong Dong was miraculous, some people genuinely think that adding barn doors to an already pre focussed tiny light source is worthwhile.
 
IIRC some the V1 "advantages" are faster recycle, more power and has lithium? battery rather than AAs. Guess it depends how much you value the difference between the 685 and V1.
V1 looks cool though;) :)
 
Adamcski said:
If it helps, I have one of these Godox TT6850 ones cost about £99(as do others on the forum) and I've had no issues with it. Not sure if it meets your needs but it's working for me.
Click to expand...
That is the model I was looking at and the likely contender. Mr Google did its job and showed me other options. Monkey sees and often wants. It seems to me that buying options that can be triggers by others makes sense so expandable.
Phil V said:
IMHO
Adding small modifiers to speedlights was frustrating and pointless when they were fiddly to attach, and they’re no less so when the system is magnetic and elegant.

But just like people who were convinced the Fong Dong was miraculous, some people genuinely think that adding barn doors to an already pre focussed tiny light source is worthwhile.
Click to expand...
I was thinking that was the case and, I guess, wanted to buy into it if it was a worthwhile thing. I’m picking up a vide that you are not overly keen!
nog said:
IIRC some the V1 "advantages" are faster recycle, more power and has lithium? battery rather than AAs. Guess it depends how much you value the difference between the 685 and V1.
V1 looks cool though;) :)
Click to expand...
Longer recycle means I have more time to think - and in this instance more money to buy something else.

Thanks for your thoughts all.
 
I have a Sony TT685 for sale if you use Sony.

Alternatively you can use it for off camera flash on any camera if you have the camera dedicated trigger.
 
I think this is a pretty subjective question. Worth it, or worth it for you? I know a lot of people absolutely love their round head speedlights, or the round head modified AD200… personally I’ve been happy to get rid of all but one speedlight and prefer the bare bulb of the AD200 versus any small fresnel. I think if you intend to use this as an event light then the round head might be a nice to have.

edit:

Just one more thing to consider... there’s facets of these lights that are inarguably features, it’s just a case of whether those matter to you as a make or break.

The round head with an affixed diffusion dome will fill a softbox more evenly than a fresnel, even zoomed to its widest. Enough for it to matter for your work? Perhaps not. And you can certainly still make some compelling images with a fresnel speedlight in a softbox. But for some people, chasing a certain look or feel, the difference of moving to the round head might prove essential.

Lithium ion batteries are wonderful for their boost in recycle times, and total shots per charge. But you've got to "babysit" them a bit and make sure you don't leave them unused for months at a time, or they will die.
 
Last edited:
I did some staff training on this and other hotshoe flashguns. My job was to explain both how to use it and to explain the benefits.
Actually using it is no more complicated than any other flashgun from the same stable, but I struggled to find any benefits - but then I didn't need to, because people buy it in their droves, for their own reasons. Maybe they believe the claim that it gives soft light, or maybe they just think that it must be better because it costs more . . .

My own view is that it's just an overpriced gimmick.
 
I came to the same conclusions as Garry - the light pattern is slightly different, but slap a grid on a rectangular speedlight, and it creates a near-enough round pattern anyway. All of the same attachments and gizmos are available for rectangular speedlights,

Those tiny barn doors don't do anything on either shape of light btw - they are too small compared to the size of the light source (but they do serve as attachment points for some bigger ones):-

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/CniThJTjyr4/
 
The YouTube demo was useful. I guess when I saw the V1 I was hoping that it was a kit space saver that provided good results - but as the title of this thread indicates, thought it was just likely gimmick.

I’m kind of surprised that no one has mentioned that they have one as I assume they are selling by the container load.
 
Personally I prefer the V80III it has the rechargeable battery pack and quicker recycle time like the V1 without the stupid round head.
 
Tulipone said:
The YouTube demo was useful. I guess when I saw the V1 I was hoping that it was a kit space saver that provided good results - but as the title of this thread indicates, thought it was just likely gimmick.

I’m kind of surprised that no one has mentioned that they have one as I assume they are selling by the container load.
Click to expand...
I think they’re more popular in the states where viral gimmicks are a great success.
I’m a member of some FB lighting groups and the Godox round heads and magnetic attachments, as well as the MagMod stuff is quite popular.
I have to self censor when faced with that level of naïveté
 
Given that it seems to offer a nice soft light (I think I did see some difference in the video posted above), and that there may be some benefits with regard to the accessories... perhaps there is a use case as a first purchase but not one as an upgrade?
 
Phil V said:
I think they’re more popular in the states where viral gimmicks are a great success.
I’m a member of some FB lighting groups and the Godox round heads and magnetic attachments, as well as the MagMod stuff is quite popular.
I have to self censor when faced with that level of naïveté
Click to expand...
I don't belong to any of these groups but have looked at them. The active posters are people who sell them, but they cleverly post under the names of "celebrity" photographers who not only recommend the products but also offer special discounts to the public but who forget to mention that they are very closely associated with the sellers and are paid to promote the products. If the public had the sense to research into these "celebrity photographers" then they would quickly realise that anyone can become a celebrity on fakebook simply by making thousands of posts and making wild claims about their expertise. In short, very similar to the "influencer" approach to selling used for cosmetics, food products and many others. And of course, certain manufacturers also pay people to act as influencers . . .

This is a social media thing. It doesn't happen here on TP because the admins spot this type of behaviour and jump on it from a great height.
Tulipone said:
The YouTube demo was useful. I guess when I saw the V1 I was hoping that it was a kit space saver that provided good results - but as the title of this thread indicates, thought it was just likely gimmick.

I’m kind of surprised that no one has mentioned that they have one as I assume they are selling by the container load.
Click to expand...
Well, there will be some members who have it, but I think that most members are more discerning.
learningtofly said:
Given that it seems to offer a nice soft light (I think I did see some difference in the video posted above), and that there may be some benefits with regard to the accessories... perhaps there is a use case as a first purchase but not one as an upgrade?
Click to expand...
Godox says that it offers a nice soft light, but why are you saying this?
"Softness" is a subjective term anyway, and there are a few very technical factors that can make minor differences to perceived softness, but softness is really controlled by just two principal factors, the physical size of the light source in relation to the size of the subject and the distance between the light source and the subject. Marketing crap doesn't change the laws of physics. Small lights can produce soft light, but only when
1. They are used extremely close to a tiny subject, for example if you want to photograph a pea and the flash is within about 1.5cm of the pea - do you want to use it to photograph peas?
2. The effective size of the light is greatly increased, in which case it is no longer a small light source. You can do that by enclosing it in a softbox, or by attaching an umbrella, or by bouncing it off of a ceiling or wall, or by using other tools such as silks.
Phil V said:
IMHO
Adding small modifiers to speedlights was frustrating and pointless when they were fiddly to attach, and they’re no less so when the system is magnetic and elegant.

But just like people who were convinced the Fong Dong was miraculous, some people genuinely think that adding barn doors to an already pre focussed tiny light source is worthwhile.
Click to expand...
Another good example of influencer marketing, from way back before fakebook . . . "Hey, look at me, I'm a celebrity who charges $40,000 to photograph weddings, and I invented this wonderful accessory which defies the immutable laws of physics. If you want to be as rich and famous as me then you need it too" - or words to that effect.
 
I put my hand up to owning V1 :)

Pricewise here its cost is only slightly more than the V860M3. I do like the convenience of the modelling light in the flash head and the magnetic attachment for gels - granted both are nice-to-haves and not essential.

For events, I'll usually shoot short bursts as there is always someone blinking so fast recycling is important. I also have the V860M2 and the V1 recycle is noticeably better, I'm not sure about the relative power of those two models.

The TT860 is less largely because it's using AA batteries and the V's have rechargeable lithium batteries.

If you don't need the power, the lithium batteries, or the modelling light then TT860 will be great.
 
learningtofly said:
Given that it seems to offer a nice soft light (I think I did see some difference in the video posted above), and that there may be some benefits with regard to the accessories... perhaps there is a use case as a first purchase but not one as an upgrade?
Click to expand...
In one of the ‘product’ images there’s was a tiny difference in the edge of the shadows. But at normal shooting distances the few sq mm of extra surface area will make diddly squat difference.

If we take the usual photographic use and understanding of ‘soft light’ then we would use a softbox that’s roughly the same distance from the subject as the softbox’s width. ie a 90cm softbox, three feet from the subject.

So a bare speedlight (no matter what the shape of the head) would only be ‘soft’ at macro distances
 
Actually not more than the softbox width or, in the case of a rectangular softbox, the diagonal. Once the distance exceeds this it stops acting as a softbox
 
Besides the hype, and mostly useless "round head" accessories, because the V1 has a fixed diffusion screen and cannot zoom you are paying more for effectively 1/2 the power. And it is significantly more for the same generation (i.e. 860VII vs V1 VII); at least here in the US it is.
 
sk66 said:
Where did you find good color correction gels for it? I have the round head adaptor kit for the V860 and have only found/seen "creative" gels (sadly, I am not all that creative).
Click to expand...
As I also do filming I have rolls of CTO, 1/2 CTO and other color correction gels. It's easy to attach a piece of gel to a normal speedlight with an elastic band. As I mentioned having them held in place by the magnets is a nice-to-have - it's a bit easier and neater.
 
TimHughes said:
As I also do filming I have rolls of CTO, 1/2 CTO and other color correction gels. It's easy to attach a piece of gel to a normal speedlight with an elastic band. As I mentioned having them held in place by the magnets is a nice-to-have - it's a bit easier and neater.
Click to expand...
I use blu tack to attach gels to regular speedlights; press it firmly onto the speedlight, and press the gel less firmly to the blu tack... quick/easy; a lot like "self adhesive."
 
Last edited:
In case anyone thinks the round head gives a rounder light, here is a quick test attached for straight-on shooting, all the same settings and distance to a white wall:
V860M2 - most noticeable circle, center measures 156, top right 58
V1 - center measures 170, top right 65
V1 with dome - center measures 149, top right 56
 

Attachments

  • V1_11A2575.jpg
    V1_11A2575.jpg
    40.8 KB · Views: 9
  • V1_w_dome_11A2574.jpg
    V1_w_dome_11A2574.jpg
    38.5 KB · Views: 9
  • V860M2_11A2573.jpg
    V860M2_11A2573.jpg
    39.5 KB · Views: 9
Garry Edwards said:
Actually not more than the softbox width or, in the case of a rectangular softbox, the diagonal. Once the distance exceeds this it stops acting as a softbox
Click to expand...
“Stops acting as a softbox” err, and it acts as what instead? :D I get that with distance, softness becomes sharper and contrast goes down… but it’s a bit of a reach saying a softbox stops being soft immediately, once you pass a small distance threshold. In my experience most modifiers are sitting 5-6ft minimum from my subject, and none of my softboxes are that large on any dimension. The light still registers as soft to my eye.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I don't belong to any of these groups but have looked at them. The active posters are people who sell them, but they cleverly post under the names of "celebrity" photographers who not only recommend the products but also offer special discounts to the public but who forget to mention that they are very closely associated with the sellers and are paid to promote the products. If the public had the sense to research into these "celebrity photographers" then they would quickly realise that anyone can become a celebrity on fakebook simply by making thousands of posts and making wild claims about their expertise.
Click to expand...
I’m with you in that there is a slimy, unappealing huxterism to a lot of online photo “personalities”, but I think this is a cynical, verging on condescending view on something which is a comparatively small consideration and a largely pragmatic choice for people who prefer it.

It’s not my preference, I don’t own or work with the round head kit, but I get the appeal, and not everyone who chooses them is a naive rube.

I can see a humble, working pro sorting a location kit of all AD200s and V1s sharing a common set of accessories among their round heads, and capitalizing on the dome to fill softboxes better than the fresnel, and packing smaller than the bare bulb.

In fact, former lorry driver and avowed PG Tips drinker Robert Hall says he prefers the round head and dome for his location work:

View: https://youtu.be/7OcF684H8Gc
 
Last edited:
jlafferty said:
In my experience most modifiers are sitting 5-6ft minimum from my subject, and none of my softboxes are that large on any dimension. The light still registers as soft to my eye.
Click to expand...

At distance ≤ the size of the softobox is where it can provide wrap (softness) for a subject of ~ equal size; because it can see around the edges. At longer distances it may be able to provide some wrap for smaller details (e.g. a nose), but not the larger details (e.g. head). By 2-3 times distance there is no point to the diffusion as it is only consuming power... the relative size is so small that only the parallel rays reach the subject and it can provide no wrap/softness.

What typically happens is that there is so much spill and ambient bouncing around that it fills in shadows and the end result if flat/soft lighting.
jlafferty said:
In fact, former lorry driver and avowed PG Tips drinker Robert Hall says he prefers the round head and dome for his location work:
Click to expand...
There's quite a bit wrong/misleading about that video... The parabolic is not parabolic because it has diffusion over it; and using a parabolic with a forward directed head is pointless. The diffusion is also nearly pointless at that distance, other than creating a larger catchlight reflection... the light is still quite hard as shown by the nose shadow in the test shot. The diffusion dome over the AD200 at ~ 10ft is also pointless and just wasting battery; especially as fill 1.5 stops under... I could probably go on, but I just gave it a quick skim.

Want to evenly fill a softbox with a forward pointing head? Get a reverse mounted softbox instead...
 
sk66 said:
At distance ≤ the size of the softobox is where it can provide wrap (softness) for a subject of ~ equal size; because it can see around the edges. At longer distances it may be able to provide some wrap for smaller details (e.g. a nose), but not the larger details (e.g. head). By 2-3 times distance there is no point to the diffusion as it is only consuming power... the relative size is so small that only the parallel rays reach the subject and it can provide no wrap/softness.
Click to expand...
I think this sounds academically correct but in practice it’s not true, speaking from experience. I usually shoot with a 90cm “deep parabolic” octa, and I can assure you at 150-180cm+ it still behaves a soft source on a human scaled subject, versus harder sources of a similar diameter at the same distance. I can also assure you it is an absolutely different look if you keep the distance the same but remove the diffusion. You might be correct if you’re referring to comparing idealized/theoretical light sources, but IME shaping and materials affect how divergent a look/feel is on a real modifier.

sk66 said:
What typically happens is that there is so much spill and ambient bouncing around that it fills in shadows and the end result if flat/soft lighting.

There's quite a bit wrong/misleading about that video... The parabolic is not parabolic because it has diffusion over it; and using a parabolic with a forward directed head is pointless.
Click to expand...
Pointless? I mean I guess it depends on the context and end goal. If it’s strictly optimizing collimation, I guess it’s “pointless”. If it’s making a technically sound photo that feels good? If you’ve shot a parabolic diffused versus other modifiers and found it appealing? Hardly pointless.


sk66 said:
The diffusion is also nearly pointless at that distance, other than creating a larger catchlight reflection... the light is still quite hard as shown by the nose shadow in the test shot. The diffusion dome over the AD200 at ~ 10ft is also pointless and just wasting battery; especially as fill 1.5 stops under... I could probably go on, but I just gave it a quick skim.

Want to evenly fill a softbox with a forward pointing head? Get a reverse mounted softbox instead...
Click to expand...
Again, I love indirect sources for what they are. I also love direct facing parabolics for what they are. IMO all that matters for lighting is ECC: efficiency, coverage and character. If a direct parabolic is both more efficient and gets above a minimum threshold for the character you’re after versus indirect, have at it.

And side note: nose shadows are almost always hard despite widely varying softness of light because of the nose’s proximity to the face as its projected surface. Chin shadows are usually better tells for a light’s “softness”.
 
Last edited:
This is something that I have been thinking about recently and the factors are ... the V1 is less easily packable than the comparable flashes in the range. But apart fro the gimicks has probably the best display. The v860 lll is remarkably similar apart from the round heard and addition of the front facing modeling light
.the v860 ll is very similar without the modeling light and has the slightly earlier quick foot clamp.
The tt685 ll is very similar again but takes 4AA batteri
The recycle times of those with lithium batteries is slightly faster than with Alkaline ones but very little different than when using the ni mh Eneloop type.
The actual power output on all these is near identical at 60m @ 100iso

I have decided that while in domestic rooms my Godox tt350 is perfectly adequate as a bounced flash. It definitely is not at say a large wedding venue. Where any of the above 60m rated flashes are not far off their limit. Especially if using high speed settings as fill in full sun. Or as bounce from higher ceilings. In these situations it is good to have all the power you can get.

As flash is not now something I need to use very often I will be getting a TT685 II f as the bet compromise and price to effectiveness ratio. It will give me the maximum power and very good recycle rates, but not all the latest bells and whistles that have no importance for me. They are available new as low as £105 From time to time.

If you want soft, bounce it off a ceiling / wall or a reflector of 80 cm or more. White / silver are perhap the most versatile. Probably the smallest packing ones are fold up halo ones by manfrotto/ Lastolite they have a 1/4" mounting screw in the handle portion that can be fixed to just about any clamp or stand. However they are more costly.
 
Last edited:
jlafferty said:
“Stops acting as a softbox” err, and it acts as what instead? :D I get that with distance, softness becomes sharper and contrast goes down… but it’s a bit of a reach saying a softbox stops being soft immediately, once you pass a small distance threshold. In my experience most modifiers are sitting 5-6ft minimum from my subject, and none of my softboxes are that large on any dimension. The light still registers as soft to my eye.
Click to expand...
Placing your modifiers at any distance of your choice is fine, your decision entirely and I'm not suggesting that you should do things differently.
sk66 said:
At distance ≤ the size of the softobox is where it can provide wrap (softness) for a subject of ~ equal size; because it can see around the edges. At longer distances it may be able to provide some wrap for smaller details (e.g. a nose), but not the larger details (e.g. head). By 2-3 times distance there is no point to the diffusion as it is only consuming power... the relative size is so small that only the parallel rays reach the subject and it can provide no wrap/softness.

What typically happens is that there is so much spill and ambient bouncing around that it fills in shadows and the end result if flat/soft lighting.

There's quite a bit wrong/misleading about that video... The parabolic is not parabolic because it has diffusion over it; and using a parabolic with a forward directed head is pointless. The diffusion is also nearly pointless at that distance, other than creating a larger catchlight reflection... the light is still quite hard as shown by the nose shadow in the test shot. The diffusion dome over the AD200 at ~ 10ft is also pointless and just wasting battery; especially as fill 1.5 stops under... I could probably go on, but I just gave it a quick skim.

Want to evenly fill a softbox with a forward pointing head? Get a reverse mounted softbox instead...
Click to expand...
Correct.
Going by memory here, a lot of years ago this principle was repeatedly explained on forums and websites, but many people didn't seem to get it and started to believe (and say on forums) that the correct softbox to subject distance is the maximum effective distance, i.e. the diameter of a round softbox or the diagonal of a square or rectangular one. That's nonsense of course, but it's what happens.
There is of course no such thing as a correct distance, but there is a maximum effective softbox distance, as explained by sk66 above.
jlafferty said:
I’m with you in that there is a slimy, unappealing huxterism to a lot of online photo “personalities”, but I think this is a cynical, verging on condescending view on something which is a comparatively small consideration and a largely pragmatic choice for people who prefer it.

It’s not my preference, I don’t own or work with the round head kit, but I get the appeal, and not everyone who chooses them is a naive rube.

I can see a humble, working pro sorting a location kit of all AD200s and V1s sharing a common set of accessories among their round heads, and capitalizing on the dome to fill softboxes better than the fresnel, and packing smaller than the bare bulb.

In fact, former lorry driver and avowed PG Tips drinker Robert Hall says he prefers the round head and dome for his location work:

View: https://youtu.be/7OcF684H8Gc
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm often cynical, and condescending too. I can also be quite patronising, but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong.
But I will agree with you that there is nothing wrong with people buying whatever kit they want to, it's their choice.
jlafferty said:
In fact, former lorry driver and avowed PG Tips drinker Robert Hall says he prefers the round head and dome for his location work:

View: https://youtu.be/7OcF684H8Gc
Click to expand...
He's probably better at driving lorries than I am . . .
And he is perfectly entitled to have his own preferences. But I tend to have reservations about people who try to convince others that the so-called 'parabolic' softboxes have real-world benefits. They don't.
 
jlafferty said:
I usually shoot with a 90cm “deep parabolic” octa, and I can assure you at 150-180cm+ it still behaves a soft source on a human scaled subject, versus harder sources of a similar diameter at the same distance. I can also assure you it is an absolutely different look if you keep the distance the same but remove the diffusion.
Click to expand...
You can't get harder than a parabolic light source; unless of course it's not truly parabolic for whatever reason (e.g. wrong type of light source, wrong position, wrong desing/construction). And if you simply remove the diffusion the primary difference (at distance) will be the lack of spill and an increase in power... it's not "theoretical."

jlafferty said:
Pointless?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's pointless to pay the premium for, and deal with the space eating size/depth of, a parabolic modifier and then use it in such a way that it cannot possibly be functioning as a parabolic... any form of diffusion will provide the same basic result. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "forward facing head" (i.e. speedlight, AD200 round head/fresnel head, etc).

jlafferty said:
And side note: nose shadows are almost always hard despite widely varying softness of light because of the nose’s proximity to the face as its projected surface. Chin shadows are usually better tells for a light’s “softness”.
Click to expand...
No, nose shadows are usually hard because the light source is too far/small and cannot provide the required wrap... also too far/small to create translucent highlights and controlled/rapid falloff.
 
sk66 said:
You can't get harder than a parabolic light source; unless of course it's not truly parabolic for whatever reason (e.g. wrong type of light source, wrong position, wrong desing/construction)... it's not "theoretical."
Click to expand...
OK, let me clarify what I mean by theoretical - all of your noted "exceptions" make it a real challenge to find a truly parabolic source out in the real world - design and construction are everything. Is it academically, theoretically true that a parabolic source is hardest? Sure. But in the real world there are several sources that are as hard, and more practical to acquire and deploy on a photo shoot, including: Hardbox, DIY hardbox made from cinefoil, fresnel, optical spot. Broncolor claims their parabolics behave as a true parabolic should.. I'm searching my mind for another true parabolic source and coming up short... they have great looks but I wouldn't reach for them if my goal was creating the hardest shadow I could.
sk66 said:
Yes, it's pointless to pay the premium for, and deal with the space eating size/depth of, a parabolic modifier and then use it in such a way that it cannot possibly be functioning as a parabolic...
Click to expand...

I'd personally pay the premium to have the option of having it work double duty as a parabolic, or soft source. For my work that sort of flexibility from a single modifier is hardly pointless. You can make a diffused "parabolic" octa feel like a Photek Softlighter, but you can't make the Softlighter feel like a parabolic source by removing the diffusion.

sk66 said:
Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "forward facing head" (i.e. speedlight, AD200 round head/fresnel head, etc).
Click to expand...

Definitely didn't, I think? See my use of "indirect" in contrast. I thought we were referring to "forward facing parabolic", ala:



sk66 said:
No, nose shadows are usually hard because the light source is too far/small and cannot provide the required wrap... also too far/small to create translucent highlights and controlled/rapid falloff.
Click to expand...
I'll just speak from my personal experience and say this isn't the case, as I see it. We might be talking about different things though, and something is getting lost in the process. In super soft (to my taste) images, the nose shadow is always more dense and more defined than the chin shadow, so the chin shadow seems a more reliable indicator of "hardness". I've shot with mixed sources - diffused octa and then beauty dish - side-by-side, same subject, and the nose shadows seem very similar despite the overall feel of the lighting being strikingly different. I don't have great examples to post that I can think of off-hand, but perhaps this is closest - left most image nose shadow versus center image chin shadow - same lighting, the difference is a proximity thing:
 

Attachments

  • elle trio.jpg
    elle trio.jpg
    59 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:
jlafferty said:
Just the cheap ones, or even those made by Broncolor, Briese & Parabolix?
Click to expand...
I don't know, because I've not personally tested them and I'm not an astrophysicist so aren't qualified to test them scientifically but . . .
Their 'round' shape is formed by a collection of rods, which prevents them from being round, and both the type and position of the light source is variable, so logic tells me that although they may be prettier to look at, better made and can be expected to last longer, they cannot be parabolic.

In the world of science, people do their research and then publish a paper about it, in full detail. A host of their contemporaries then carry out and publish their own research (peer review) and any mistaken or false statements are very quickly identified.

By comparison, in the commercial world of photographic gear, manufacturers are free to make wild claims, knowing that there will be no peer reviews. Various people then make YouTube videos about the product, some of these videos will be sponsored by the manufacturer, there may also be truly independent reviews but they aren't scientific. The manufacturer then uses the helpful videos in their marketing, and a large percentage of the buying public believe what they see and buy the product. Some of these customers then repeat the claims on forums, adding to the snowball effect.

And, on the technical side, some manufacturers just make up figures to sell their products. This happens a lot with guide numbers, flash duration and colour temperature figures. I remember going to a factory in China to look at a brand new IGBT flash (one of the very first). I tested it with a colour temperature meter and found that the figures were completely false. I asked the manufacturer about it, and his response was to ask me what this strange meter was! When I asked him which meter he had used he said that his chief engineer had done all the technical stuff, he didn't speak any English but I could ask him about the technical details. The language wasn't a problem because I had a Mandarin speaker with me and, in any case, equations on a whiteboard aren't limited by language, but was then told that his chief engineer was away on holiday.

You think I'm exaggerating the problem? Well, Godox say in their marketing material that the V1 produces a "beautiful soft light" and the public believe it, and then repeat that statement on forums:(

I'm not suggesting that the V1 is a bad product, but the fact of the matter is that even terrible products can be hugely successful due to deceptive marketing.
 
Marketing is there to sell products rather than point out problems. You’d hope that at least some of what they spout is accurate though.
 
softness always depends on the area of the light source.
All flash lights including the V1 have comparatively small light sources, This is true of studio flashes too. Forward pointing flash tubes, even bare bulbs, are surprisingly difficult to modify to give a wide diffused even area light source.

the light reflected off a large surface will always produce the softest light. Diffusion always comes second best..

However texture is always best captured with direct parallel light. however this is incredibly difficult to achieve with soft foldable "parabolic" style reflectors.

In the days of tungsten very large Metal truly Parabolic reflectors were available, that had the effect of a parallel flood light. the surfaces of these reflectors were available in any thing from matt white to dimpled polished metal. they gave beautiful portrait lighting with varying degrees of shadow hardness. no equivalent is made for flash photography.

This is a self portrait under one such light that I took in the 50s
terry-studio.JPG
 
Garry Edwards said:
I don't know, because I've not personally tested them and I'm not an astrophysicist so aren't qualified to test them scientifically but . . .
Their 'round' shape is formed by a collection of rods, which prevents them from being round, and both the type and position of the light source is variable, so logic tells me that although they may be prettier to look at, better made and can be expected to last longer, they cannot be parabolic.
Click to expand...

I feel this is an overly literal and restrictive claim - the simple fact is many products which claim to be parabolic aren’t anywhere near a parabola; but at the same time, some products associated with the parabolic descriptor accomplish something that no other modifier can, and they’re sought out for those effects - the effects are obvious, well known and tangible. Whether they behave like a true parabola in every strict fashion is beside the point (for me anyway).

Garry Edwards said:
In the world of science, people do their research and then publish a paper about it, in full detail.
Click to expand...

Sure. But of course photography ain’t strictly a science, so the analogy reaches its limits pretty quickly…

Garry Edwards said:
By comparison, in the commercial world of photographic gear, manufacturers are free to make wild claims..

And, on the technical side, some manufacturers just make up figures to sell their products…

You think I'm exaggerating the problem?
Click to expand...

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration but I do feel whatever animus you’ve got toward marketers - or people duped by their marketing - is a straw man I’m not interested in defending. You’re welcome to take up arms against that stuff, but for me it’s all beside the point, which is:

What does a tool offers that’s unique, and how (or if) it serves a purpose for my work.

Garry Edwards said:
I'm not suggesting that the V1 is a bad product, but the fact of the matter is that even terrible products can be hugely successful due to deceptive marketing.
Click to expand...

Right, and here we are again. I think it’s a stretch to imply because the V1 is popular, and has some dubious marketing attached to it… that people using it are victims of its marketing. That might not be exactly your point, but I’m simply here allowing that some people choose it -knowingly - for the ways it benefits their workflow.

Again, to put it another way, the V1 has some benefits that are inarguably features, and not gimmicks. Faster recycle time. Cross compatibility with other round head products in their line up. The diffusion dome fills a modifier better than any speedlight fresnel can. There’s also factors that are subjectively beneficial, like using li-ion vs. AA batteries. At the end of the day it’s down to a personal choice if those things matter.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
.
In the days of tungsten very large Metal truly Parabolic reflectors were available, that had the effect of a parallel flood light. the surfaces of these reflectors were available in any thing from matt white to dimpled polished metal. they gave beautiful portrait lighting with varying degrees of shadow hardness. no equivalent is made for flash photography.
Click to expand...

Broncolor makes/made a parabolic reflector called the Mini Satellite that I think closely, if not exactly, mimics what you’re mentioning, only in the mirror finish though. And if you search YouTube, there’s a guy who DIYs one using reflective tape and an old domestic TV satellite dish - it’s pretty cumbersome, but the light effects are fantastic.

edit: here it is -
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bqBsHSwPgw
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top