Round headed flash guns/speedlights..?

Messages
5,107
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just been reading about these flash guns, ie Godox V1 with round heads.
The theory is (from what little I've read) that it evens out the light and removes hot spots.
Is this a big deal or sales hype?
I'm not looking for a new one (my Godox 860 seems to do all I need when I have to use an on-camera flash) and I've not seen any photographers using one, but just wondering if anyone here has any experience?
 
I've just been reading about these flash guns, ie Godox V1 with round heads.
The theory is (from what little I've read) that it evens out the light and removes hot spots.
Is this a big deal or sales hype?
I'm not looking for a new one (my Godox 860 seems to do all I need when I have to use an on-camera flash) and I've not seen any photographers using one, but just wondering if anyone here has any experience?
It’s BS
 
I've got one and it's not my favorite, I fancy it narrows the beam rather than spread it evenly. It's also a PITA if you want to use modifiers.
 
It’s BS
Have, a verbose and complicated reply such as I might expect from you... Honest too, thanks!
I've got one and it's not my favorite, I fancy it narrows the beam rather than spread it evenly. It's also a PITA if you want to use modifiers.
And thank you too!
I did think that there might be another way to change the spread of light with some form of lens on the front of the head rather then something totally different and unsupported by the vast range of modifiers already out there.
 
b******t is a mild term, deceptive might be more accurate
 
Have, a verbose and complicated reply such as I might expect from you... Honest too, thanks!

And thank you too!
I did think that there might be another way to change the spread of light with some form of lens on the front of the head rather then something totally different and unsupported by the vast range of modifiers already out there.
I’ve written hundreds of words today on flash and it seems to have been wasted.
I thought maybe a more concise answer to this question would suffice.
A speedlight head is designed to focus the light from the tube and send it out in a narrow beam.
thats literally what its job is. Anyone pretending that making it 50% bigger and a different shape will make a significant difference to its output is patently lying.

In order to swallow the BS involved in advertising these products you are forced to suspend your understanding of physics.
 
I’ve written hundreds of words today on flash and it seems to have been wasted.
I thought maybe a more concise answer to this question would suffice.
A speedlight head is designed to focus the light from the tube and send it out in a narrow beam.
thats literally what its job is. Anyone pretending that making it 50% bigger and a different shape will make a significant difference to its output is patently lying.

In order to swallow the BS involved in advertising these products you are forced to suspend your understanding of physics.
I meant my remark as complimentary - you said it as it is, which is what I wanted to hear, so I hope I didn't come across in any other way Phil!
 
A man of few words and those few are mostly useful!
 
I posted some examples a while back with V1 vs 860. There’s no noticeable difference. The modeling light on the V1 is better than my 860 and the colors can be held in place by the dome. That’s it.
There’s a modelling light on the 860?

I have a few 860s, and a V1
 
The problem is v1 is not actually even round once you look past the round rim with the frosted glass. The zoom head is as rectangular as it gets inside. The glass and the tube sort of shape but not quite.
Ad100 and h200r head for ad200 are properly round.

And then you either don't care about it or you do. For me that would depend on the day...

It is all mostly down to cost, power (60ws on paper) and batteries, and build. You can buy a few for the cost of one profoto or a top end canon. But I'd rather get another ad200 to be pretty honest
 
My first reaction (earlier this month) to the issue of Godox round head vs. rectangular head was 'marketing BS', too! But then today, by chance I just ran acrossed this YouTube video in which the person actually compares the illumination field of rectangular vs. round...
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iLbm4NsqC8

...and at about 2:15 we can clearly there is a VISIBLE BENEFIT to the round head in the shape of the illuminated field and its evenness of illumination! OTOH, the rectangular head does provide a brighter illumination field...the xenon tube only creates a certain number of photons, if if they are spread vertically as well as horizontally, there are fewer photons falling in a given square area, leading to less brightness.
 
Last edited:
I posted some test shots a while back, 860, v1 and v1 with dome:

 
I posted some test shots a while back, 860, v1 and v1 with dome:

I saw those photos (March 2023) and unfortunately the FOV of the lens used did not extend outside the bounds of the illuminated field. so one could not really appreciate the different in the two flash heads. And so, like others, I could adhere to 'marketing BS' conclusion more readily.
The video which I linked had a FOV extending well outside the illumination field, so the shape of the illumination field could be appreciated, as well as deviations in brightness near the edge of the illumination field. And so I could see I was mistaken in my own initial assessment, it was NOT all 'marketing BS' after all.
 
Last edited:
I saw those photos (March 2023) and unfortunately the FOV of the lens used did not extend outside the bounds of the illuminated field. so one could not really appreciate the different in the two flash heads. And so, like others, I could adhere to 'marketing BS' conclusion more readily.
The video which I linked had a FOV extending well outside the illumination field, so the shape of the illumination field could be appreciated, as well as deviations in brightness near the edge of the illumination field. And so I could see I was mistaken in my own initial assessment, it was NOT all 'marketing BS' after all.

yes and no - the example pictures have the zoom matching the field of view, representing the differences in normal use.
 
My first reaction (earlier this month) to the issue of Godox round head vs. rectangular head was 'marketing BS', too! But then today, by chance I just ran acrossed this YouTube video in which the person actually compares the illumination field of rectangular vs. round...
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iLbm4NsqC8

...and at about 2:15 we can clearly there is a VISIBLE BENEFIT to the round head in the shape of the illuminated field and its evenness of illumination! OTOH, the rectangular head does provide a brighter illumination field...the xenon tube only creates a certain number of photons, if if they are spread vertically as well as horizontally, there are fewer photons falling in a given square area, leading to less brightness.
That’d be a fantastic result if the round heads were sold on the ‘evenness’ of the illumination, or purely the shape.

But that’s not the case, the marketing BS suggests: ‘Camera Flash Speedlite adopts a round flash head to offer studio-level soft and even light effects’

People are buying these things cos they believe the light is ‘soft’ and ‘studio quality’.
 
Last edited:
yes and no - the example pictures have the zoom matching the field of view, representing the differences in normal use.
As you said, "Yes and No"...
  1. Yes the head truly makes a different area of coverage, rounder in total area.
  2. But NO, if you shot a square format camera (which should better exhibit the benefit of a rounder illumination field, it does not make much of a practical difference.
When pointed forward inside a softox, when there is limited head-to-frontpanel distance capability, the round head might
  • be better able to fill the short dimension with light
  • exhibit less of a hotspot in a single-diffusion softbox
And @PhilV is right on target that the round head will not be 'softer', which is totally dependent on the matter of relative AREA
 
As you said, "Yes and No"...
  1. Yes the head truly makes a different area of coverage, rounder in total area.
  2. But NO, if you shot a square format camera (which should better exhibit the benefit of a rounder illumination field, it does not make much of a practical difference.
When pointed forward inside a softox, when there is limited head-to-frontpanel distance capability, the round head might
  • be better able to fill the short dimension with light
  • exhibit less of a hotspot in a single-diffusion softbox
And @PhilV is right on target that the round head will not be 'softer', which is totally dependent on the matter of relative AREA
I still have a couple of each, and I find is no noticeable difference. For more tricky situations I have a preference for the roundhead for the modeling light which my older 860s don't have and for putting the gels under the dome rather than attaching with elastic bands.
 
And this is the AD200 pro
With the PIKA200 Round Head Attachment (H200R) attached, the PIKA200 PRO produces softer, more natural looking lighting ’

Neewer Z1
Powerful, Soft & Flexible Lighting Effect’

The circular flash head design delivers soft, natural lighting effect with even light distribution from center to edge.


Profoto A10 (not quite as bad - though they have been publicly slated in the past for disingenuous claims)

It has a round head that gives a natural light spread with smooth fall off

And the Godox V1 as above:
Camera Flash Speedlite adopts a round flash head to offer studio-level soft and even light effects’

Like I said ‘marketing BS’. I never said there’s ’no difference’, I’m saying they’re sold on disingenuous promises of delivering something they can’t.
 
Last edited:
A basic understanding of the Inverse Square Law is the foundation of all photographic lighting. People who don’t have this basic understanding can only produce good results by accident, and these are the people who believe the marketing BS that we’re talking about here. The rest of us simply ignore the BS.

Marketing BS only works when people can be persuaded to spend money on equipment, convincing themselves that “better” gear will produce better results. It doesn’t (for example), work with chess players, these people can’t be conned into believing that they will win more games if they buy a more expensive chess set, and it doesn’t work with pool or snooker players, who will buy one decent cue that will only ever be replaced if they break it or lose it – really good players could beat me if they were playing with a broomstick, everyone accepts that it’s all about the level of skill and care, photography is the opposite.

We can blame Godox for this particular example of BS, but it’s our fault if we believe it. It’s also the fault of the “influencers” who create deceptive ads on social media. These ads nearly always masquerade as helpful or instructional videos, but as someone who has produced genuinely helpful or instructional videos (or at least has tried to). I can tell you that it takes a lot of work, a lot of time and a lot of money to do so. These “influencers” are usually people who have created a reputation for themselves as influencers or celebrity photographers, they have never been good enough at photography to manage without their social media income – lost sheep masquerading as sheepdogs!

They may be paid directly by the manufacturer, or they may be paid by the retailer, or they may be paid by YouTube, or by an affiliate programme, or they may have made the video in return for free equipment, or they may be selling their training programme, or they may be paid by more than one source, the only clear thing is that they don’t post these videos for our benefit:(

And it isn’t just Godox. There’s another firm, that sells seriously overpriced LED lights that claim to have far more power than they actually have, and their “celebrity photographer” claims that the inverse square law doesn’t apply to the products he promotes. Everyone who understands the principles of lighting can spot, immediately, that this is just BS, but the market for these junk products is the people who don’t understand these principles!

And there’s the famous and apparently reputable manufacturer who, a few years ago, posted a series of videos that (clear to actual photographers) were illustrated with photos that were actually taken with different light modifiers to the ones being sold . . .

So, what’s the answer? Just learn the basic principles of lighting and ignore any marketing that contradicts those principles and that “proves” the deception with heavily-retouched photos, it really is that simple!
 
Following on from my post above, this post explains why genuinely helpful videos on equipment have been replaced by blatant sales videos that are usually intended to deceive.

This video dates back over 11 years. It has very few views, but this may be down to a lack of understanding (at that time) of YouTube promotion. The final edit took it down to 7 minutes, but it took a long time, and a lot of money, to produce it.

Michael Sewell was the presenter because he’s a better presenter than me.
The shooting took a full day, then there was another half-day for both of us when he did the commentary voice-over, so call that 3 days minimum.

Then there was the cost of the video production itself, including the editing.

We also paid for the model and the make-up artist.

All or most of the equipment used was new stock, meaning it could only be sold at a heavily discounted ex-demo rate after use. I remember that we took along 7 of the flash units, there always needs to be redundancy of everything, and we didn’t know what the weather would be like . . . That’s a big cost!

Other, usual costs were avoided. We didn’t have van hire because all the gear went into my large off-road vehicle. We didn’t pay for the venue because it’s a farm owned by a friend and he let us have it free. And we didn’t pay for the extra people, they were all TP members who were invited to come along and watch, basically a free training day, which I used to do back then.

So, why did we do it? Brand building, we had unique products that nobody else had, so it was worth spending money to get both the products and our name in front of people.

Why wouldn’t it work now?

Because the world has changed. Nothing used in that video was made by Godox, but Godox now has a monopoly on lighting, their products are available from all retailers, profit margins are extremely low and customer loyalty is now a thing of the past, people buy from whoever is £1 cheaper, so any money spent on producing genuinely helpful videos is wasted.
 
Back
Top