AlienBees or Photogenic

[mchong75]

This poll is going to consist of personal preference, product quality, reliability, etc.

I know there are loyal fans for both the AlienBees product and the Photogenic products. (Mainly the flash units)

So, vote and let me know which one of these two you own, want, would prefer, etc.

[ueb0258]

I have 2 PL06's and 3 Studiomax 320's.

[TMR Design]

You have to decide what is important to you.

The Photogenic Studio Max III is a wonderful strobe with very consistent power output and color. The downside of the SM III is that there is NO proportional modeling light and the modeling light is either on at full power or off. Other than that I'm partial to the SM III. The analog controls on both are not accurate with the Alien Bees using a slider and the SM III using a knob. The advantage of the SM III knob is that despite it's in accuracy it is somewhat linear. The Bees is nonlinear and as you decrease power the distance between stops decreases to almost nothing. At low power levels on the SM III you still have some degree of control that the Bees don't provide.

[mchong75]

You have to decide what is important to you.

The Photogenic Studio Max III is a wonderful strobe with very consistent power output and color. The downside of the SM III is that there is NO proportional modeling light and the modeling light is either on at full power or off. Other than that I'm partial to the SM III. The analog controls on both are not accurate with the Alien Bees using a slider and the SM III using a knob. The advantage of the SM III knob is that despite it's in accuracy it is somewhat linear. The Bees is nonlinear and as you decrease power the distance between stops decreases to almost nothing. At low power levels on the SM III you still have some degree of control that the Bees don't provide.

Thanks for your input.

Well, reliability, durability and the overall performance per dollar is what I'm looking for.

[TMR Design]

Then in my opinion you'll get that from the Photogenic StudioMax III (either 320ws or 160ws). They both perform equally well.

[mchong75]

Cool. Thank you.

Still doing some more research and looking at reviews and such.

[TMR Design]

By all means, do that. I can only offer my opinion and preference but ultimately you must decide what makes the most sense for you. :D

[Jannie]

I found this forum/website link in the Alien Bees literature and it's pretty helpful.
http://www.paulcbuff.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=59

[jamesn]

Robert, like many others I've been reading and researching the various posts for entry level lighting. While reading through the debate about Calumet I read your Photogenic Studio Max 320 AC/DC post. My question for you is I'm looking at using these outdoors to do small groups, individual soccer pictures, portraits, etc. I want the freedom to use on the field, beach, etc....so will the 320's provide me with enough power to work in the sun? I will start with a single, reflector and work on adding the additional as I learn.

Also, any suggestions for the softbox or simply go with the larger photogenic model? Will be head to full body shots. Haven't thought to much about action yet. So will try to keep it basic.

Thanks, I appreciate your insite and consistency of your posts.

[Rudi]

Robert, like many others I've been reading and researching the various posts for entry level lighting. While reading through the debate about Calumet I read your Photogenic Studio Max 320 AC/DC post. My question for you is I'm looking at using these outdoors to do small groups, individual soccer pictures, portraits, etc. I want the freedom to use on the field, beach, etc....so will the 320's provide me with enough power to work in the sun? I will start with a single, reflector and work on adding the additional as I learn.

For individual portraits and small groups, as long as you keep the light close, you should have enough power. But all that will go out the window as soon as you have to move the lights back a little in full midday sun, and use a softbox. It really depends what you want to do - if all you want is flash fill while you use the sun as main light, it can be done. But, there is a reason why many pack and head systems on the market are 600Ws and up... (a lot of them around the 1200Ws mark, which seems to be enough power for most things).

If you actually want to overpower the sun on a regular basis, and with larger groups when you might have to move your lights back a little, you will need more - at least 600Ws IMO. I use a Ranger 1100Ws system on location, and would not want to have anything less.

[Papa Carlo]

The biggest advantage of PhotoGenics over AB is its consistency.
The biggest disadvantage long flash duration. It is 1/125 sec meaning that it is even lower than synch speed of many cameras. Why is it bad ? For oudoor work you automatically must have 2 times more powerful lights to achieve the same results as with AB.
I personally took the middle and went with Calumet Genesis which is still more consistent than AB and despite it has longer flash duration than AB it is still not a limiting factor as with Photogenics.

[edward.hall]

Then in my opinion you'll get that from the Photogenic StudioMax III (either 320ws or 160ws). They both perform equally well.

I agree. I would buy photogenic instead of AlienBees. If you are planning to use your lights for 1 year then I guess I will buy AlienBees but for long term durability, definitely Photogenic.

[RDKirk]

I agree. I would buy photogenic instead of AlienBees. If you are planning to use your lights for 1 year then I guess I will buy AlienBees but for long term durability, definitely Photogenic.

Having used five AlienBees lights on location for the last five years, and having had their lightstands hit the ground more than once without so much as breaking a flashtube, I'd dispute that statement.

If you're actually comparing apples to apples and like models to like models, Studiomax is neither more consistent nor more reliable than Alienbees. If you get the specific "Constant Color" Studiomax, you can get better consistency (not perfect--better), but with other compromises, such as flash duration (as has been noted).

[jamesn]

Thanks Rudi, I'm looking at the Elinchrom Line, still trying to find the holy grail of functionality, performance and $. I like to buy not to replace but grow into. That is why I haven't pulled the buy button yet.

Again, I really appreciate your feedback. I'm leaning towards a single mono to start along with a softbox. Already have Giotto's air cushion stands, photoflex umbrellas with PWmini and flex on the way.

[TMR Design]

Having used five AlienBees lights on location for the last five years, and having had their lightstands hit the ground more than once without so much as breaking a flashtube, I'd dispute that statement.

If you're actually comparing apples to apples and like models to like models, Studiomax is neither more consistent nor more reliable than Alienbees. If you get the specific "Constant Color" Studiomax, you can get better consistency (not perfect--better), but with other compromises, such as flash duration (as has been noted).

If you're talking consistency there is no question that the Photogenic StudioMax III's are better. I"ve owned and thoroughly tested both. Not just color but pop to pop output is far more consistent.

The bees have faster durations buy many don't need or care about it. If you're a portrait photographer is will never come in to play but when it comes to consistency, the StudioMax III are superior. Do the testing to see for yourself.

[Wilt]

I have not kept up to date on Photogenic line, but let me relate a test that I witnessed at a PPA show in Chicago in the 1990's...Photogenic 750 vs. White Lightning 1200 (I don't remember the exact model numbers, but the model number was supposed to give an idea of light output!). In the test, the units were directly compared using a variety of light modifiers on both units...bare head, same softbox, standard reflector, same umbrella, etc. In all cases the 'less powerful' Photogenic put out more light than the 'more powerful' White Lightning. Additionally there were other feature benefits that the Photogenic had, which the White Lightnings did not. To me it was not so much a negative statement against WL as it was a positive indicator of the value of Photogenic product.

[Papa Carlo]

I have not kept up to date on Photogenic line, but let me relate a test that I witnessed at a PPA show in Chicago in the 1990's...Photogenic 750 vs. White Lightning 1200 (I don't remember the exact model numbers, but the model number was supposed to give an idea of light output!). In the test, the units were directly compared using a variety of light modifiers on both units...bare head, same softbox, standard reflector, same umbrella, etc. In all cases the 'less powerful' Photogenic put out more light than the 'more powerful' White Lightning. Additionally there were other feature benefits that the Photogenic had, which the White Lightnings did not. To me it was not so much a negative statement against WL as it was a positive indicator of the value of Photogenic product.
It is not he case with Paul Bluff and his shrewd decision to name the lights after imaginary "effective WS" :-). That is definitely the case with AB I am not sure about WL though.

[Wilt]

It is not he case with Paul Bluff and his shrewd decision to name the lights after imaginary "effective WS" :-). That is definitely the case with AB I am not sure about WL though.

Both AB and WL are made by Paul. In the WL-only days, the effective watt-second claim was his attempts to bolster the market image of his product. Somewhere along the line (when I quit looking) he abandoned the hard line 'effective watt-second' position, and started to use his current dislaimers about effective watt-seconds (maybe as a reaction to market pressure), yet he still names his products that way.

Back when I saw that test, I wrote to Photogenic with the quip (tongue in cheek) that they should call the Photogenic 750 the 'Photogenic 1500' simply because its output was more than the WL 1200. It seems that they did fall victim to the same inflated model number naming in more recent years, unfortunately!

[RDKirk]

[quote]Photogenic 750 vs. White Lightning 1200 (I don't remember the exact model numbers, but the model number was supposed to give an idea of light output!). [quote]

That was an invalid presumption leading to an invalid test--which would have been solved merely by reading the literature that came with the flash units. The White-Lighting unit (which, by the way, is an older model, not current) would have been only 600 watt seconds to the Photogenic's 750 watt seconds.

I suspect the "tester" knew that and figured his audience did not, staging a deliberately bogus test that his audience gullibly fell for.

[Rudi]

That was an invalid presumption leading to an invalid test--which would have been solved merely by reading the literature that came with the flash units. The White-Lighting unit (which, by the way, is an older model, not current) would have been only 600 watt seconds to the Photogenic's 750 watt seconds.

I suspect the "tester" knew that and figured his audience did not, staging a deliberately bogus test that his audience gullibly fell for.

That's a lot of presumption and speculation all in one post... but the fact still remains, Paul C. Buff's continued use of "effective Watt-seconds" is tarnishing their reputation more than helping it.

[Wilt]

[quote]Photogenic 750 vs. White Lightning 1200 (I don't remember the exact model numbers, but the model number was supposed to give an idea of light output!).

That was an invalid presumption leading to an invalid test--which would have been solved merely by reading the literature that came with the flash units. The White-Lighting unit (which, by the way, is an older model, not current) would have been only 600 watt seconds to the Photogenic's 750 watt seconds.

I suspect the "tester" knew that and figured his audience did not, staging a deliberately bogus test that his audience gullibly fell for.


But 100 w-s does not make a one EV difference in output, which is what all of the tests showed. Ordinarily that would have been about 10% difference in light output, all else being equal...100% difference being one EV.

[photographergirl]

I was torn between Alien Bees or Photogenic as well. Really wanted the Photogenic but could not afford their pricing. A few weeks ago I finally made the decission to buy a light kit and was dead set on Alien Bees at the time. After doing some research on amazon.com I found Photogenic Studiomax III AC Portrait Studio Kit with 2 AKC 320 Constant-Color Monolights. I found the last kit for $499.00 The kit is now $665.00 on amazon.com but let me say I love them. A friend of mine has this set with the back light and let me test them out. I have to say I fell in love with them and they are very very easy to use. I have also seen the Alien bee's up close and between the two I would go with Photogenic any day.

What is even better is Photogenic is having a promo where if you buy certain lights or kits you can get a free soft box, umbrella, reflector or a few other things. So not only did I get two umbrellas with my kit I got a 24x36 soft box with ring tube for free!

[TMR Design]

Excellent. Congratulations.. It's great that you got to see and play with the strobes first. :D

[photographergirl]

Yes it really helps make a inform decision. Now I have started the long task of saving up for a flash meter, pocket wizards and a back light. It has taken me 3 yrs to decide on what type of lighting set up I wanted and really could not beat the price, and quality.

A few weeks ago I went to a seminar held by Sandy Puc who is a childrens photographer in CO she uses Photogenic and a lot of pro's I know use them as well. Seeing them up close and her explaining where most things goes really helped but I am still confused and have a long way to go till I fell comfortable with it all. One thing I do know she said to set your camera to ISO 100 60 SEC F/8 And I have read a lot of others say close to the same thing. ISO 100 125 SEC F/8.

[epatt250]

I would have expected Sandy Puc to be a Elinchrom, Bron, or Profoto type of gal. I guess if Dave Hill can get by with White Lightning that she can make do with Photogenic too :p

[TMR Design]

I love Sandy Puc's work. She's talented and captures children in a beautiful way. I think there are a lot of professionals that don't necessarily sit and research and drive themselves crazy choosing a brand and many are not interested in high tech accessories or modifiers. They go with a brand that offers what they need, gets high marks, and is solid performer. Speed rings are available for just about any strobe you can buy and that allows the use of most softboxes, octaboxes and strips, and that's all they need to know.

[photographergirl]

She is amazing and very talented. In the book you get at the seminar in the Photogenic ad she says and I quote " Photogenic is a great company that really cares about there clients. I don't endorse every product that comes down the pike, but I go out of my way to spread the word about companies that I find exceptional. Photogenic is one of those companies." And I AGREE!! I was pushing the Alien Bees all the way till I experienced Photogenics brand now its all I talk about.

[TMR Design]

It's great to see photographers endorsing what they really believe in rather that what they're given by manufacturers to endorse. Tony Corbell used to endorse Visatac (by Bron) and would go on and on about the features and how he loved them. Well, now how's endorsing Profoto D1 series monolights. Not that there's anything wrong with that but he just goes with whoever is dropping gear at his door and you don't really get a sense of what he truly likes or loves. It's all about the endorsements.