Godox V1 - worth the extra or just gimmick?

jlafferty said:
Yeah Phil, he said "just like the sun" and then it didn't incinerate him instantly, either. Your determined pedantry is impressive.
Click to expand...
Well, you seem to be determined to turn what was an interesting thread into a p***ing contest, so we should probably all just get on with photography and ignore you.
But, in closing, I'll just mention that:
The sun is about 93 million miles away
It has a diameter of about 865,000 miles
It has a surface temperature of about 5,778 K

And yet here on earth it looks pretty small, and the average temperature here is just 288K (or 15C).

Which should (but perhaps doesn't) tell you that the Inverse Square Law works:)
 
There is another principle that may explain the differing views - the Rayleigh range. I’m no physicist, my simple understanding is that this is a measure of the distance from a collimated light source before it starts to behave as a point source and ISL applies. My experience suggests this distance is rather short with modifiers I’ve used. At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter, light definitely falls off with distance and we just adjust the strobe power to get the light we need.
 
I
jlafferty said:
Yeah Phil, he said "just like the sun" and then it didn't incinerate him instantly, either. Your determined pedantry is impressive.
Click to expand...
Whod have thought the guy from the home of creationism and the flat earth decides to argue that one of the laws of physics is a con. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The inverse square law states that for a point source of waves that radiates omnidirectionally and with no obstructions in the vicinity, the intensity decreases with the square of the distance, from the source.

Most light sources are not point sources. So do not strictly follow the inverse square law.
This is the case with all focussed and coherent light sources.
However it would be safe to say all light sources lose intensity with distance. reflectance. diffusion and diffraction. But that the degree of loss varies with these conditions.
 
Last edited:
Here are the test results which show ISL applies with the light in both the mid and flood position and slower light falloff at short distances than ISL suggests in the spot position.

Distance
(m)		mid positionLight reduction (stops)
1f320
2f162
3f113
4f84
Distance
(m)		flood positionLight reduction (stops)
1f160
2f82
3f5.63
4f44
Distance
(m)		spot positionLight reduction (stops)
1f320
2f221
3f113
4f84
 
Last edited:
TimHughes said:
Here are the test results which show ISL applies with the light in both the mid and flood position and slower light falloff at short distances than ISL suggests in the spot position.

Distance
(m)		mid positionLight reduction (stops)
1f320
2f162
3f113
4f84
Distance
(m)		flood positionLight reduction (stops)
1f160
2f82
3f5.63
4f44
Distance
(m)		spot positionLight reduction (stops)
1f320
2f221
3f113
4f84
Click to expand...
Yes, those results are as expected, thanks for doing the work.
People need to understand that the laws of physics are immutable.
 
DemiLion said:
Well they're not... but in this case...
Click to expand...
They are, by definition.
But people are sometimes confused by external factors, variables or even by deceptive marketing.
For example, the laws of physics must always apply when a car is cornering rapidly, but external factors such as road surface, camber, brakes, steering geometry, tyres, suspension and driver skill can appear to change things.

With the Inverse Square Law, the variables are
Whether the light really is a point source
Whether or not we have "free space" (infinite space, no reflective surfaces, a vacuum, no pollution)

But, whenever the parameters meet Newton's criteria, it must always work in strict linear terms.
 
By definition, they are not.

Otherwise the Newtonian Laws of Motion would not exist and we would still be following Galileo's.

Not to mention Einsteinian and Hawkinsian theory.

Surely we are not ignorant (or arrogant) enough as a species to think that we actually understand how the universe works and that all of our theories are correct?

Any law can be updated when proven incorrect - as they often are.
 
"Laws of physics" are mathematical descriptions of the world around us and are improving as our understanding improves. The inverse square law is an accurate model for point sources.

The measured results of the light fall-off over distance with the tested parabolic reflector are observable facts. The results show that the mathematical model for predicting the fall-off of light with distance, that we call ISL, is a good fit except when the para is focused up to about 2m distance. i.e. collimating the light does delay the distance before it behaves as a point source.

As @Garry Edwards commented this is as expected based on experience and is now quantified with measurements.
 
TimHughes said:
As @Garry Edwards commented this is as expected based on experience and is now quantified with measurements.
Click to expand...


My point to Garry was more philosophical than subject relevant.

So called physics 'laws' are only limited by our knowledge. Although as a measure they are accurate to the current level of understanding (ie the inverse square law).

The laws of physics are in constant flux.

After all it was little more than 400 years ago that Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake in Rome for heresy; mostly because he expounded the Copernican theory of a heliocentric Solar System (let alone the universe).
And yet some of our laws of physics still date back to the ancient Greeks!
 
DemiLion said:
My point to Garry was more philosophical than subject relevant.

So called physics 'laws' are only limited by our knowledge. Although as a measure they are accurate to the current level of understanding (ie the inverse square law).

The laws of physics are in constant flux.

After all it was little more than 400 years ago that Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake in Rome for heresy; mostly because he expounded the Copernican theory of a heliocentric Solar System (let alone the universe).
And yet some of our laws of physics still date back to the ancient Greeks!
Click to expand...
Fair point, but I don't accept that the laws are in fact in a state of constant flux

A case in point may be the Antikythera mechanism, built a couple of thousand years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antik...echanism (/ˌæ,and eclipses decades in advance.

Modern advances in technology allow us to "see" and calculate much further, but haven't disproved the theory and design behind the Antikythera mechanism and in fact have confirmed them, indicating that the laws of physics are indeed immutable.

You quote Giordano Bruno, but that's a red herring. The Copernican model was formed about 1514, probably based on the much earlier work of Philolaus (4th century BCE) and was universally accepted by all scientists (except those who worked for the Roman Catholic Church) - who still have some scientists who support the teachings of the church
.
 
Graham W said:
Aaanyway...The Godox V1...is it any good? :popcorn: :)
Click to expand...
Tulipone said:
I'm picking up hints that maybe not worth any more than a less round flash?
Click to expand...
I think that the general consensus is that it's perfectly good, but not worth the extra for the gimmicks and the claimed advantages. . .
 
From a press point of view - everyone who has one loves it for OCF for run and gun portraits, where you don't have time for anything more sophisticated.

However when it comes to rapid recycle work, not so much.
 
Faldrax said:
The V1 and 860iii share the same battery, so this suggests the 860iii will also have a great battery life.
Click to expand...
It does. The ii was great as well, actually the ii is rated for slightly more iirc. But I've never ran out using it on events for hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top