Q-Flash - High Powered ETTL Flash

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …EG&addedTroughT​ype=search

Has anyone seen or used these before? I was told by my local store its in beteween Alien Bees and Speedlights...

he said if you are looking for something battery powered, portable, and powerful, to check out this product.

Any comments?

I just placed an order for one yesterday I am going to use mine for weddings and portrait use. Its a great portable flash, but very expensive. I am looking forward to mine (Monday from B&H)

Let me know how it goes, I am really intresting in hearing about you experience.

Seems like such an intresting product. Ive been looking at more AB gear + a battery , and started to wonder if this would also fit the bill.

I am trying to combat the sun for fill flash on a bright sunny day. Also have some nice portable power for all types of shooting.

StealthLude wrote in post #2953832
Let me know how it goes, I am really intresting in hearing about you experience.

Seems like such an intresting product. Ive been looking at more AB gear + a battery , and started to wonder if this would also fit the bill.

I am trying to combat the sun for fill flash on a bright sunny day. Also have some nice portable power for all types of shooting.

I would love some AB's, but they are not very portable. The 580EX does not have the power to bounce or diffuse light for large group shots or high ceilings, so the Q-Flash fills the void. I have seen them in action and have always been impressed, very even and clean coverage, and very powerful

150 Watts per second?? Surely B&H knows better than that -- it is watt seconds.

150 watt seconds..

Alien Bee AB400 is 400 effective, and 160 true watt/seconds.

Does that mean the Q-Flash puts out the same power as an AB400, or is the Q-Flash 150 "effective" not true watt seconds.

This little guy seems pretty expencive, I wonder if its worth just giving me 580ex an honest workout for the money. I havent really challenged it for fill flash yet against a sunset. I wonder how well it will do.

Holy Crap...

I just got off a 2 hour long phone conversation with Quantum about their TTL X5DR and modular pack system. Beside for the price, I have to say I am VERY impressed. I didnt know one really had a high end alternate to Canons ETTL speed light system.

400 watt seonds of TTL flash is pretty damn tempting. Instead of more AB strobes, im thinking of pickuping up one of these bad boys.

What exciting, (with additional stuff) you can use your 580ex as a master to your Q-Flash slave.

StealthLude wrote in post #2956363
Holy Crap...

I just got off a 2 hour long phone conversation with Quantum about their TTL X5DR and modular pack system. Beside for the price, I have to say I am VERY impressed. I didnt know one really had a high end alternate to Canons ETTL speed light system.

400 watt seonds of TTL flash is pretty damn tempting. Instead of more AB strobes, im thinking of pickuping up one of these bad boys.

What exciting, (with additional stuff) you can use your 580ex as a master to your Q-Flash slave.

I think that if you search through some fairly recent posts by Curtis N (aka The Measurebator), he takes aim at the term "effective" energy.

Personally, I would say that the honorable folks at Quantum have come into contact with some of the unstable element "delirium" that is used along with secret smoke in their flashes.[1]

Joules (or watt seconds as the flash makers seem to prefer calling it, probably because it sounds more impressive) is not an ambigious term and there is no such thing as "effective" joules (watt seconds).

The real problem is that marketers have gotten into an area where they actually don't have a clue about what they are saying. They have taken a grain of truth and used it to bake (cook up) a whole loaf of untruth.

Besides, the number of joules of energy dissipated when the capacitor discharges into the flash tube doesn't correlate exactly with the amount of light that is emitted. Their "game" is to compare the output of an imaginary point source radiator (which can't exist) to a somewhat directed light source (their flash). I see two obvious problems in that thought process:

1. No flash maker sells a flash that is an isotropic radiator of light so what value does their analogy serve?
   
2. They are using input energy to describe output energy (radiated light). There are too many variables to which you do not have access to make this valid statement of light output. Why not give an actual measure of real light output intensity at points across the field of regard ... or ... is there a reason that Guide Number can't be used.