A New Bare Bulb Flash Arrives

Nikkor316 wrote in post #16184415
David, I have the PCB folding octa softboxes for which I also use the Bowens adapter/speedring when attaching the CL360. How do the Fotodiox EX-Pros compare to the PCB ones (material, light quality, operation, durability, etc.)? Thanks.

The Buff foldables are the standard. Fotodiox are lighter weight material, less robust frame but still very useful. LIght quality is subjective but I like the way they all modify the light. I'd say the Fotodiox EZ-Boxes are durable. If I hadn't gotten the Buff boxes first, I may just have purchased the Fotodiox EZ-boxes. The one thing that is much better with the Buff boxes is the grids. The Fotodiox grids are really crap. They provide minimum benefit and are very flimsy.

ZoranC wrote in post #16184334
While it is too early to speak about long term reliability I find it very encouraging that we haven't heard a single report of reliability issues so far.

I've been using my three CL-180's ever since March and my CL-360 for about two months now. I've shot 11 weddings , 100 + portraits, and 17 other gigs like e-sessions or corporate events. That is literally 1000's of pops....probably close to 20,000 or more. I've yet to have a problem with the lights.

^^^ I haven't used my as much as Jim. But I have had a 360 go over on a light stand in the wind. No problems. It, along with the other 360 and the 180s are chugging along without a problem.

Does anyone here with a Cheetah Light (or Godox) happen to have Nikon gear, and would like to test / review the new Pixel King Pro for Nikon?

I realise this is a Canon forum but just thought I'd ask here first as you may be interested for the HSS function with the CL as well. Thanks.
.

Elv,
Dave (tetrode) has Nikon gear. He is probably the best resource if he's willing to invest the time.

Elv,
Another option, I have an associate that shoots Nikon. With my lights, we could do a comparison of the Canon and Nikon versions. Let me know via email.

I shoot Nikon and might buy both the Godox lights and the King Pro Triggers for a shoot I have coming up. But the shoot is not until February. So you might have to wait a while.

dmward wrote in post #16184381
Not sure what you want to know.
I have several of the Fotodiox octas, ranging from about 36" up to the big one.
All are EZ-Pros. They fit onto the Pro Bracket with an Bowens adapter. The 360/180 head goes past the vertical bracket opening with a bit of giggling to get the tightening knob past. Once that's accomplished its possible to get the flash tube into optimum position.

I think the images showing how to position the tube are back about 1830 in this thread.

With the tube in proper position the modifier works great with the expected light output fall off.

I was wondering if the power of a single 360 was sufficient enough to fill a larger light box and be effective?

jay_jay_n wrote in post #16186342
I was wondering if the power of a single 360 was sufficient enough to fill a larger light box and be effective?

a single 180 is powerful enough to fill a 50" x 50" soft box, assuming that we're talking about using it indoors and not trying to over power the sun. I've been using mine for months with great results. A 360 is more than enough.

elv wrote in post #16184764
Does anyone here with a Cheetah Light (or Godox) happen to have Nikon gear, and would like to test / review the new Pixel King Pro for Nikon?

I realise this is a Canon forum but just thought I'd ask here first as you may be interested for the HSS function with the CL as well. Thanks.
.

Elv, I have both CL-180's and CL-360's for testing with my Nikon equipment. I have successfully used both with PW + Nikon for HSS which has worked fine so far. I don't currently have access to the new Pixel King Pro. Let me know if I can be of any assistance.

P.S. I have access to almost all current and past Nikon DSLR models.

use mine in a 60 softlighter

jay_jay_n wrote in post #16186342
I was wondering if the power of a single 360 was sufficient enough to fill a larger light box and be effective?

elv wrote in post #16184764
Does anyone here with a Cheetah Light (or Godox) happen to have Nikon gear, and would like to test / review the new Pixel King Pro for Nikon?

I would like to test if provided "recipe", but be warned I am not a reviewer ...

jay_jay_n wrote in post #16186342
I was wondering if the power of a single 360 was sufficient enough to fill a larger light box and be effective?

A speedlite will fill an 80" PLM. Just not very much light. I think I got about F5.6 ISO 400.

The CL180 or 360 is much more powerful.

As Jim points out. Its all about what kind of exposure setting you want to achieve.

The bare bulb does a nice job of spreading the light with minimal loss.

Nikkor316 wrote in post #16148151
Here's my PW firmware setting for HSS tab:

This worked for me, yay! _However_, I too noticed "interference bars" on one occasion when flash was used in H mode. I am guessing that underexposure makes them more visible.

33" QWBD White Beauty Dish/OCTA

I received one of the newly released Cheetah 33" White Beauty Dish/Octa's today. The following are simply my observations.

What I like the best is that this new BD/Octa is lightweight and takes up very little space when collapsed. It also produces nice light, both with and without the diffuser. On the other hand, it takes a good bit of force to open, and the attention to detail on the unit I received could be better. Anyone that needs a grid on their BD/Octa, by the way, will have to look elsewhere.

In terms of build quality, mine was delivered with a small hole (see Image 5) where the thread that holds the outer shell to the ribs was laced through the outer fabric instead of the seam where the panels are stitched together. The other issues are that 2 of the 4 places (Image 2 & 3) where the outer fabric is stitched to the ribs looks like it will eventually break or unravel, and the overall stitching (see Image 6) isn't the greatest.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE