A New Bare Bulb Flash Arrives

PhotographersWorldWide wrote in post #16169536
Well, I suppose thats one step better than comparing antique T2 flashes with Cheetah's - why don't you go the whole hog and compare what the real receiver looks like rather than a transceiver capable of controlling MULTIPLE Quantum's - all at once with one receiver in TTL - linked by "all those" cables or SEQUENCING (btw.. those features not supported by Cheetah either):

At least you got one thing right.

Nothing here has really changed from day #1 it seems.

I'm curious. Lets compare some things. I looked up the Quantum Qflash T5d-R with the Turbo 3 battery just to see what I'm "missing" out on. Lets compare the The Qflash and the Cheetah light CL-180

They both put out the same power (actually the CL-is rated 3.6ws more powerful but that's negligible)

They both come with a powerful battery pack but the CL-180 offers 900 full power pops compared to the Qflash's 600.

The Qflash offers TTL. The CL-180 does not. But for many of us, that's not a factor anyway.

The Qflash, in manual mode, goes down to 1/64 power. The CL-180 goes farther, to 1/128 power

The CL-180 offers high speed sync. I didn't see where the Qflash offers this. Maybe it does but it's not listed in the specs.

The CL-180 system comes complete with light, battery, receiver and transmitter for
+-$700.

The Qflash + battery only is $1330 (at B&H) without the needed transmitter. How much is the transmitter? $447 according to B&H. Let me do the math for you.

Qflash system $1770. Cl-180 system $700

So, please tell me again why the Qflash is the preferable choice?

jcolman wrote in post #16169453
Since you bothered to look up that I have a 580ex flash, why do you say that "that (TTL flash function) doesn't exist for me". Honestly, are you simply stupid, blind or both?

What you fail to understand is that I use my 580ex on camera and my Cheetah lights off camera exclusively. I use the ettl mode on my 580ex and all my other lights are in manual mode. As I mentioned earlier, I don't want my off-camera lights to provide any ttl function. None. Zip. Nada. Nyet.

I am neither stupid nor blind (the fact you need to use a 580ex on camera I didn't miss) and I don't go spouting that I NEED TTL or conversely, as you posted - that you "don't depend on TTL" (?) - obviously you do. You use your 580ex in ettl mode and you just cited one case. TTL definately doesn't exist with the Cheetah's and thats the reason they are cheaper.. as I specifically said.. "Making comparisons includes features, as well as price. Whilst the Cheetah fans want to celebrate the low price - this comes at a cost of the lack of features. Simple."

Thats what I meant in saying "Given the choice - I'd dare say you would prefer the 600EX-RT's with a higher output." e.g. prefer the 600EX-RT's with the Cheetah output.. TTL flash with greater output..

Good - I haven't told you that you "need" anything. You have told me that you DO use ettl and prefer the Chetah's because of their greater output. I have both of those in one system, and like CHAD D was scoffing about cabling - I'm sure ALL the third party radio solutions people are concocting and necessary to make Cheetah's work are entirely integrated with the Cheetah lights and whatever on camera support system necessary to hold them.

.

PhotographersWorldWide wrote in post #16169634
I am neither stupid nor blind (the fact you need to use a 580ex on camera I didn't miss) and I don't go spouting that I NEED TTL or conversely, as you posted - that you "don't depend on TTL" (?) - obviously you do. You use your 580ex in ettl mode and you just cited one case. TTL definately doesn't exist with the Cheetah's and thats the reason they are cheaper.. as I specifically said.. "Making comparisons includes features, as well as price. Whilst the Cheetah fans want to celebrate the low price - this comes at a cost of the lack of features. Simple."

Thats what I meant in saying "Given the choice - I'd dare say you would prefer the 600EX-RT's with a higher output." e.g. prefer the 600EX-RT's with the Cheetah output.. TTL flash with greater output..

Good - I haven't told you that you "need" anything. You have told me that you DO use ettl and prefer the Chetah's because of their greater output. I have both of those in one system, and like CHAD D was scoffing about cabling - I'm sure ALL the third party radio solutions people are concocting and necessary to make Cheetah's work are entirely integrated with the Cheetah lights and whatever on camera support system necessary to hold them.

.

Even if the Cheetah lights had TTL, I would not necessarily use one on-camera like I do with my 580ex. Size and form factor play a big role. I don't want a battery cable running from my on-camera light to a battery on my belt. I like the smaller size of my 580ex's.

Again, no, I don't prefer the choice of 600's vs CL-180 or 580ex. I don't need the output of a 600 for my on-camera flash. It's as simple as that.

Finally, lets take a look at prices vs features. Oh wait. I just did a couple posts ago Sorry but I'm laughing all the way to the bank, as the saying goes.

Gaarryy wrote in post #16169436
I think it's pretty natural to compare things that are priced very similar that serve the close to the same purpose. With the CL 360 & AB800 +VML being very close in price and in W/S I think it's a comparison that will be made many times in the future.

I had 6 AB800 monolights at one time. They got me started with remote power control via the controller that was wired to the light(s) via long telephone cables. They worked great, I sold them for just about what I paid for them and I think the guy I sold them to is still using them. My experience with Buff inc. has resulted in great customer service.

I just went to the Buff website and looked at current pricing; If one is going to get an AB800, VML, Cyber Commander, Cyber Sync Trigger, and Plus receiver for remote power control the total is $849.75.

I currently have two CL-360s and two CL-180s; The current package price for the CL-360 is $779.95. That's everything one needs and it too offers remote power control. If one wants to take advantage of the H mode capabilities then a Cells II (most Canon cameras) or Cells IIc (5DIII & 1Dx) transmitter is required.

The AB800 offers 6 stop power range, and a modeling light. CL-360 offers 8 stop range.
AB800 had Balcor mount for modifiers. CL-360 had Lumidyne type mount or via additional bracket can accept Bowens mount modifiers.

Even though they are similar in price they are two different lights for two different applications.

If could only buy one, I'd think long and hard about what kind of shooting situations I was going to be doing with the light(s).

There are also other options, for both types of light. This is only intended to address the question related to Cheetah Lights and AB.

jcolman wrote in post #16169617
So, please tell me again why the Qflash is the preferable choice?

Only ONE system is necessary.

Only ONE radio system is needed.

Your on camera controller can include:
i) a flash using the SAME in-built radio system,
ii) a transmitter/controller only,
iii) a zone controller,
iv) a simple trigger,
v) a TTL converted simple trigger.

You can operate remote Speedlites by the same radio system.

You can operate Quantum's by the proprietary optical Speedlite systems.

All Quantum's offer all modes in all outputs from 80Ws through 150, 200 and 400Ws.

Mode choice is unrestricted and the decision to use can be made as and when required.

Batteries don't break apart when dropped.

.

When someone has decided they want a BMW and then buys one - would you then spend as much time trying to convince them that they really should have bought a Mercedes?

Are you payed by Quantum? Or why are you so desperately trying to convince people that they should buy Quantum? Is it just because you like to be a troll?

PhotographersWorldWide wrote in post #16169634
I'm sure ALL the third party radio solutions people are concocting and necessary to make Cheetah's work are entirely integrated with the Cheetah lights and whatever on camera support system necessary to hold them.

Two problems with this conclusion;
A) For X-sync the CL-Tx and CL-Rx that are shipped with the kit work fine for delivering radio triggering. No add-ons and no cables.

B) The "concocted" solutions are various photographers looking for ways to take advantage of the Cheetah Light's H mode FP-sync capabilities. If they are using a Canon camera pre-2012 firmware update to support 600EX-RT the Cells-II trigger works fine. No cables, no add-ons. And the CL-Tx becomes a handy remote power controller and useful for test firing. If they have 5DIII or 1Dx the soon to be available Cells IIc provides the same FP-Sync capabilities.

The others have been experimenting with ways to use third party triggers with the Cheetah Lights. i.e. Pocket Wizard ControlTL, Yongnou YN-622, Phottix Odin, etc. Just as with Quantum, or any other light unit, mixing and matching third party triggers usually requires cables and in the case of FP-sync some work to get the camera talking to the trigger properly to send a fire signal.

On a side note: I had Quantum flashes, and also the Qnexus optical triggers. They were very iffy as part of a Canon optical ETTL setup. One of the main reasons I sold the QFlashes.

PhotographersWorldWide wrote in post #16169707
Only ONE system is necessary.

Only ONE radio system is needed. Same with Cheetah

Your on camera controller can include:
i) a flash using the SAME in-built radio system, Yep. Cheetah can't do that if you want a flash on-camera
ii) a transmitter/controller only, Same with Cheetah
iii) a zone controller, Same with Cheetah
iv) a simple trigger, Same with Cheetah
v) a TTL converted simple trigger. you got me there

You can operate remote Speedlites by the same radio system. Same with Cheetah

You can operate Quantum's by the proprietary optical Speedlite systems. Same with Cheetah

All Quantum's offer all modes in all outputs from 80Ws through 150, 200 and 400Ws. Same with Cheetah in their two lights

Mode choice is unrestricted and the decision to use can be made as and when required. Same with Cheetah

Batteries don't break apart when dropped. thats very subjective

.

And what's the price difference again??? Oh yeah, $700 vs $1770. Thank you but no thank you.

pwm2 wrote in post #16169719
When someone has decided they want a BMW and then buys one - would you then spend as much time trying to convince them that they really should have bought a Mercedes?

Are you payed by Quantum? Or why are you so desperately trying to convince people that they should buy Quantum? Is it just because you like to be a troll?

Of course he's a Quantum shill. Wouldn't you find or hire someone to beat people over the head with propaganda if there were manufactures building products that eclipsed yours for half the price.

Now that they've sold the company maybe PWW will get an email telling him to tone it down.

Well, at least we can hope.

ZoranC wrote in post #16168590
If photography was cars lights would be akin to wrenches, a tool to work with. Every single newb wrench monkey I have ever seen doesn't have problem knowing from a very start, without needing anybody to tell him, that one can't do everything with a single wrench and that wrench that delivers more costs more. Thus people expressing disappointment that certain photography wrench can't do everything and cost 99 cents makes me scratch my head and wonder where all of that out of touch with reality nonsense is coming from, especially when it is expressed by experienced wrench monkeys.


I think "hybrid" is good way to describe them.

Then we would have matco vs snap on

then traditional wrenches vs ratcheting wrenches.

Just throwing a monkey wrench in this thread.

:p

I'm not taking either sides, there is a dwindling place for Quantum users and a place for CL180/CL360 users. The facts are there for everyone to see. I will say this though - while i think the CL360 is the damn nearest perfect light i've seen in some time, for versatility purposes, i was damned disappointed the IR assist beam was so weak.

Many will argue that this was meant to be used off camera. To which i will say, there is also a hot foot. Which means it was meant to be used on camera also.

I think the majority of people that use this system won't care about TTL. There are other systems for that. But for those of us in the manual camp the only thing missing is the damned stronger IR assist beam. (If anyone who can sway the manufacturer is watching this, talk to them about the laser system sony used years ago. )

sigma pi wrote in post #16169766
Then we would have matco vs snap on

then traditional wrenches vs ratcheting wrenches.

Just throwing a monkey wrench in this thread.

:p

Mike,
That's actually a good point. A mechanic knows that they need ratcheting wrenches for some jobs because open end wrenches won't do it. Thy need big honkin' monkey wrenches for some jobs because the smaller wrenches won't get the job done.

Let's see; speedlites, hybrid, monolight, pack/head same as different sizes of wrenches for different jobs.

I think that was the point of the analogy. Seems valid. The Matco/Snap-on manufacturer situation is also valid. Everyone has a manufacturer they like, sometimes its because they make a product that fits, sometimes its because the provide great support, sometimes its because they can deliver with short lead time. etc.

Jeezus

pwm2 wrote in post #16169719
When someone has decided they want a BMW and then buys one - would you then spend as much time trying to convince them that they really should have bought a Mercedes?

Are you payed by Quantum? Or why are you so desperately trying to convince people that they should buy Quantum? Is it just because you like to be a troll?

Who am I trying to convert?

Did you miss this as well?:

Chad D wrote in post #16167244
compare cheetah to QTM is a better comparison

People sure don't like the comparison being made and are keen to start insults.

Cheetah has some good things going for it but the whole operating system and function is cobbled together even requiring two of its own different transmitters to utilise its own function and even this has been shown to require further concocted solutions to make it work properly with people's cameras.

The Cheetah cost is less for sure, but the impression is that it's not finished yet. If cheap makes people happy and compensates for function then maybe "compare cheetah to QTM is a better comparison" - excluding those functions Cheetah don't have" would be a more suitable comparison for you?

Sheesh...

.

dmward wrote in post #16169726
On a side note: I had Quantum flashes, and also the Qnexus optical triggers. They were very iffy as part of a Canon optical ETTL setup. One of the main reasons I sold the QFlashes.

Optical control is iffy anyway. I've successfully mixed Speedlights and Quantums using Optical TTL on numerous occasions, a few have been doomed to failure so alternatives were used. Of the failures the limiting factor was the optical control itself. The ability to control remote speedlites and Quantums in TTL - or Manually - in this way was welcome at the time, and is still a retained function for future use.

Certainly not a basis to judge a system on, especially restricted by another systems capability.

.