[Steve Beswick]

I can compare a single trigger as the Godox units have built in receivers for "Other" brands... I agree there customer service is shocking,, but that hasnt stopped people buying. Personally I'm a Bowens monolight user indoors.. A British manufacturer for decades, that recently ceased trading...Claiming partly that they couldn't compete with the likes of Godox..

Oh no! Bowens is gone!?! That sucks. The worst part is someone is probably going to snap up the remains of the company and slap the name on generic Chinese strobes. Well, the second worst part. The worst part is the people at Bowens that have certainly lost their jobs.

[howieb101]

but then the V6II is truly cross-brand, has more functionality and better usability.

Also, Godox appears to have terrible customer service. A lot of people had a Godox device fail and never received replies to their enquiries. I do not have any sympathy for the "[I]buy three and if only two survive,

I would just like to say that Adorama, of the biggest photography stores in North America rebrand Godox as Flashpoint. I doubt Adorama would be willing to tarnish themselves selling such a terrible product. Maybe if you buy direct from Godox things are no so good but I would suggest at least for North American customers that they can buy in confidence from Adorama.

I'd also say that while the cactus triggers have more functionality they don't necessarily have better usability. You just have to Google to find there are many many happy Godox customers.

The Cactus triggers are great if you have legacy flashes already but the lithium ion batteries in the Godox flashes come into their own with their power and recycling speed. Waiting for flashes to recycle is pretty annoying. Also battery managing multiple sets of AA batteries is also something to consider if using multiple flashes.

Note: I own both Cactus V6, Cactus V6 II, Godox FT16 and Acon triggers.

[Class A]

Godox is cross-brand also, they just didn't included yet Pentax in their list of cameras.

The multi-brand support is not the same.

Godox uses different hardware for different brands. You cannot use one and the same Godox trigger on a Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc. You cannot use the same Godox receiver for a Nikon flash or a Canon flash.

The Cactus units support all brands with multi-brand hot-shoe connectors. The downside of this approach is that the fit is not optimal for a particular brand -- my V6II unit can rotate a bit in my K-1 hot-shoe; I get reliable contact though -- but the big advantage is that you can use the same hardware across systems. For anyone using two or more systems, the Cactus approach will require considerably less trigger hardware.

I hope that Godox will add Pentax support, but I am sceptical that it will happen. Adorama once had a Flashpoint trigger (rebranded Godox) for Pentax listed for pre-order, but it disappeared as silently as it appeared. I would have thought Pentax is at least as important as Fuji in terms of market importance, but perhaps it is not.

The loss with HSS is slanted against the flash output.

That's not true.
There is only some loss involved by switching from a single pulse to a continuous burst. The main loss in flash output when using HSS comes from the fact that increasing the shutter speed cuts down the light that hits the sensor. Both ambient light and flash output are affected in the very same manner by a increased shutter speed.

Godox system offers a lot more flexibility and choices.

Godox definitely offers more lighting choices. But I don't see where the Godox system offers more flexibility. Godox has caught up on some of the features Cactus have always offered (near range mode, group cycling, perhaps more?) but the V6II still offers more functionality, providing more options. Most importantly, the usability is much better, AFAIC.

AFAIC, it would be ideal if there were a system with a Cactus trigger but the Godox lighting options. For my needs, I'm fine with a V6II and two RF60 in most situations. And if you are shooting one 360 at 1/4 and another at 1/32, you wouldn't need eight RF60 but only two. But of course the one RF60 would be at 1/1 and hence wouldn't last long without requiring a cool down break. It would also be way slooooower to recycle. And it would need a couple of power packs (with a myriad of AAs) to last as long as an AD 360. So no contest, if the power of a $400 AD 360 is needed, multiple speedlights are a poor replacement. A twin AD200 solution would be sufficient and more flexible than one powerful AD 360, although that kind of flexibility would set one back $660 including the price for a dual power flash bracket.

[Class A]

I doubt Adorama would be willing to tarnish themselves selling such a terrible product.

Who said something about a "terrible product"?

I'd be apprehensive about using Yongnuo equipment but would use Godox equipment with confidence. However, sometimes devices fail and all I said was that I've read customer comments, reporting that they are very unhappy with the (lack of) support they receive in such cases. Buying from Cheetah or Adorama or some other reputable dealer providing at least support for a year would most certainly be advised.

I'd also say that while the cactus triggers have more functionality they don't necessarily have better usability.

Ergonomics can be subjective to some extent and not everyone is as sensitive about certain problems as I am. But what on earth were Godox thinking when they put the dial of some of their triggers to the right of the display? Even Godox fanboy Elvis from TruthHavoc agreed that this does not make any sense. Considering that cameras are designed to be held by the right hand, it follows that you mostly will operate the trigger with the left hand, thus blocking the display while turning the dial (unless you do it in an unnatural way). Also, even 15 years ago controlling devices through options like "C1-C9" or "F1-F7" with options for them which are not even displayed correctly/fully because an LCD segment display is used was sub-standard. In 2017, it is simply unacceptable, AFAIC. You can add to that a lack of documentation, leaving people wonder about what "C7" actually controls, with speculations and hints being exchanged as if a group of people had to decipher an alien artefact.

Next, count the number of interactions with the trigger to perform frequent operations like changing the level for a particular group. I'd move to Godox kicking and screaming, if Cactus gave up some day. I'd be writing to Godox every day that they need to fix their UI. Do you know that Adorama is working hard on Godox to achieve improvements for their Flashpoint range? Why would they do that, if there were nothing wrong with Godox usability as is?

You just have to Google to find there are many many happy Godox customers.

Of course there are many happy Godox users because Godox offers attractive products at attractive prices, undercutting the prices of established manufacturers significantly. Many are just fine with some of the shortcomings implied, so there is absolutely no wonder that Godox has found many happy users. But that does not mean that the usability couldn't be significantly improved.

Waiting for flashes to recycle is pretty annoying.

Yes, but an RF60x recycles in 1.9s (full power). That's rather quick and gets a lot quicker with lower power settings. Using a power pack further reduces recycling times (but not too much; I think they are more about increasing stamina).

Also battery managing multiple sets of AA batteries is also something to consider if using multiple flashes.

Yes, it is definitely a pain to be dealing with four (or 12(!), when using a power pack) AAs, when one could be dealing with one Li-Ion battery only. On the other hand, AAs don't require yet another charger and if one cell goes bad, you simply replace it while a Li-Ion battery becomes useless if one of its cells fails. Godox had a lot of problems with their Li-Ion batteries in the beginning, with many of them dying after a short while because one cell went bad. I believe they have addressed the problem, though, because I haven't seen any complaints along these lines anymore for a while now.

[Dan Rentea]

I just provided an example above were I needed 1/4 power and 1/32 power of the flash. But if you need the full power of AD360 and there are plenty occasions (I realised this when I changed my AD180 flashes with AD360 flashes), then you need 4 Cactus flashes to match the power of a single AD360. Not to mention that is difficult to put 4 speedlights in a 120cm deep octobox.

X1T is not that bad. If it were, then Broncolor wouldn't use a trigger which looks identical.

http://www.bron.ch/broncolor/products/accessories/showproduct/rfs-2-2-s-transmitter-sony/#.WZhmn71RXqA

[Class A]

I just provided an example above were I needed 1/4 power and 1/32 power of the flash.

I know you did and I know that there situations where more power is required / useful.
Just wanted to point out that your particular situation wasn't one of those were the use of speedlights would have been prohibitive.

Of course the AD 360 is an awesome flash. It is also rather big and has a separate power pack, plus it costs a penny, but it is still awesome. It is not what most people need on a daily basis, though, is it?

X1T is not that bad. If it were, then Broncolor wouldn't use a trigger which looks identical.

Broncolor just did the lazy thing and are just reusing the Godox product. Perhaps they are tweaking it here and there -- I don't know -- but they basically have to work with what the X1T brings to the table.

Metz did the same with their radio trigger. It is not an original development either, but essentially the Pixel King Pro with a Metz label.

Some companies like Profoto, Elinchrome, and PCB develop their own trigger solutions. Others choose the cheap route and print new labels on what they can get on the market. I would not construe that as an endorsement of the particular design choices made for the original trigger. Yes, the origial cannot be too horrible, otherwise (one would hope) it would have been rejected, but even if Broncolor or Metz do not like some aspects of the original, they just have to roll with it.

[mcgregni]

We do have to keep a sense of perspective in relation to each individuals needs. I also accept the points made about the higher performance and stamina of the Godox product examples. For myself, using flash/HSS in a non-professional low pressure environment, then I have no problem waiting for recharging and / or mounting two flashes on a multi-bracket to double the performance from my main flash group.


Of course I would enjoy and appreciate the extra performance from lithium internal batteries, plus the power management advantages over AA batteries .... but in my case its not really so important to pay a lot extra for, so as I said before the Cactus system is more than sufficient. Each person has to weigh up a number of personal pros and cons for each system type, both the power technologies / output potentials, plus the control and mode possibilities available to match with specific flash techniques for specific real-world flash scenarios.


In most cases the best choice is the system type that provides the most 'flash per buck' while also giving those mode / technical solutions as needed. That is why the cheapest route is rarely going to provide the best real value, because it most likely does not provide the full range of mode and technical options that anyone might need. But equally, the most expensive options could be overkill for many of us.

---------- Post added 20-08-17 at 06:35 ----------

Originally posted by mcgregni : " The loss with HSS is slanted against the flash output."


That's not true. There is only some loss involved by switching from a single pulse to a continuous burst. The main loss in flash output when using HSS comes from the fact that increasing the shutter speed cuts down the light that hits the sensor. Both ambient light and flash output are affected in the very same manner by a increased shutter speed.

Perhaps I should have written "slanted against the flash exposure" ... ?


I believe that once the time value exceeds the max sync that the flash exposure does not follow the normal stop by stop. step by step equal response to adjustments as it would do in the ND Filter / remaining at max sync speed scenario. This is because, as you said, more and more of the light is hitting the shutter as the time value reduces progressively down to 1/1800th.


It is interesting to note that in the Cactus manuals they write, when describing HSS Mode operations, that for each 1 stop adjustment to ISO or Aperture, there must be a corresponding 2 stop adjustment to power.

[Dan Rentea]

Of course the AD 360 is an awesome flash. It is also rather big and has a separate power pack, plus it costs a penny, but it is still awesome. It is not what most people need on a daily basis, though, is it?

For daily basis a speedlight like Cactus RF60, Godox TT685, Yongnuo 685, etc. is more than enough. It's just that Godox has options if you want to upgrade, Cactus hasn't. Mounting a X1-T trigger on a camera, or a TT685 flash, or even the small TT350 flash will let you control and trigger (TTL and HSS) all the other flashes from Godox. If you need more power than what a Godox TT685 can provide, then you have options like AD200, AD360, AD600. And if you decide tomorow that you want to move from Canon to Nikon/Sony/Fuji/Olympus, or if you're using two systems at the same time, then all you need to buy is a dedicated X1-T trigger and the flashes will work with these cameras without limitations.

I rarely use now X1-T trigger. I bought it because it was launched before XT-32 trigger. Now I use XT-32 because I like its design and its bigger screen.

[Class A]

For daily basis a speedlight like Cactus RF60, Godox TT685, Yongnuo 685, etc. is more than enough. It's just that Godox has options if you want to upgrade, Cactus hasn't.

Very true (and I agree with all the other points you've made in your post).

I wish Cactus would expand their portfolio, but so far they haven't. :/
I do get by with my gear, but it would be more convenient to have an option like the AD 200. I also fear that Cactus may not be able to survive if they don't give their users more options. I believe it would be sad if the market lost Cactus, just like it would be sad if the market lost Pentax.

Now I use XT-32 because I like its design and its bigger screen.

See, you agree with me that the X1-T wasn't the non-plus ultra.
I have my reservations against the XT-32 as well, but any trade-off discussion is pretty pointless if someone really needs/wants the bigger Godox lighting portfolio.

[Class A]

I believe that once the time value exceeds the max sync that the flash exposure does not follow the normal stop by stop. step by step equal response to adjustments as it would do in the ND Filter / remaining at max sync speed scenario.

Why would it not?

From a technical perspective, the power output of an HSS flash at a certain power level should always be the same, independently of the shutter speed. As the output takes the form of a burst, i.e., a succession of very many, very short pulses, the overall output approximates continuous light. As such, the output of an HSS flash will be diminished by increasing shutter speeds just like the contribution of natural ambient or artificial continuous light is. No less and no more.

This is because, as you said, more and more of the light is hitting the shutter as the time value reduces progressively down to 1/1800th.

Yes, but the same happens to any other kind of light.
There is no extra penalty paid by the HSS flash contribution.

It is interesting to note that in the Cactus manuals they write, when describing HSS Mode operations, that for each 1 stop adjustment to ISO or Aperture, there must be a corresponding 2 stop adjustment to power.

In which manual do they state that and where exactly?

This does not make any sense to me at all.

Perhaps this statement describes that in HSS mode the difference between say 1/1 and 1/4 is not two stops anymore but only one stop. I haven't tried to measure power accuracy in HSS mode, but I'd be surprised if the mapping from numeric stops into corresponding output actually changed. In any event, even if that were the case, there wouldn't be a dependence on shutter speed in the sense you seem to assume there is.

[mcgregni]

This is the paragraph I am referring to, on Page 34 of the RF60x user manual .....


11.2.1 Characteristics of HSS Flash ....

1. The output power of the HSS flash fired by the RF60X is different from that of a normal flash. To compensate 1EV exposure loss in your camera setting, you need to increase the power level of a HSS flash by 2EVs .....

---------- Post added 20-08-17 at 10:50 ----------

Since I enjoy taking real photos more than carrying out tests, I have not scientifically examined flash exposures from a range of settings and made compensating power adjustments. However, this statement makes sense to me (although I do wonder if this relationship between 1EV camera setting and 2EV flash power is fixed throughout the whole time value range ....?).


I can understand that flash output / EV, even for continuous bursts, would remain proportionate to ISO / Aperture stops at 1EV steps, up to the max sync speed. However, is it not the case that as the shutter blades become closer and closer together with each stop of shorter exposure time, that more and more of the light from the flash is wasted by hitting the closed parts of the blades .... would this not explain that need for greater compensating adjustments (eg as per Cactus, 1EV aperture / ISO change equals 2EV power adjustment) ? .


Cactus do not show a GN Table for HSS based on Exposure Times, but Pentax do, and the following GN data is detailed for the AF-540FGZII .... This is extracted from the table for the 58mm zoom setting (ie the maximum possible Guide Numbers) :


1/250th GN 24.2
1/500th GN 18.8
1/1000th GN 14
1/2000th GN 10.2
1/4000th GN 7.3
1/6000th GN 6.2
1/8000th GN 4.8


Not many of us will enjoy photography with GN 4.8 flash, I suspect! Obviously as can be seen there is a 'power loss' for each stop of time value reduction ...... however also clearly it is not a full stop of GN loss for each time value drop.


The massive drop occurs from 1/180th sec (GN 54) to 1/250th (GN 24.2).... this seems to show the big impact of moving into the continuous burst of output. Can I assume that the subsequent smaller drops in GN are the consequence of the progressively smaller opening through the shutters for the light, and therefore the progressively grater amount of light wasted hitting the shutters....?

[Dan Rentea]

I also fear that Cactus may not be able to survive if they don't give their users more options. I believe it would be sad if the market lost Cactus, just like it would be sad if the market lost Pentax.

200% agree. I hope Pentax will grow because they have very good products. It all depends on how they are going to approach the market in the next 2-4 years with this mirrorless invasion that push DSLR market to inovate more and more with every year.

[Class A]

This is the paragraph I am referring to, on Page 34 of the RF60x user manual .....

Thanks.

That's indeed odd but as I suspected just a consequence of a weird power mapping in HSS mode for the RF60x. I had already noticed that the HSS power levels weren't quite consistent with what you'd expect in my RF60 review and mentioned this accordingly. In practice, this weird mapping never mattered to me because I always adjust the power level by visual feedback anyhow. I never depend on a change from say 1/64 to 1/32 to exactly give me one more stop of light. Just "a bit brighter" is all I need from such an adjustment.

Ideally, one should be able to precisely counteract a change in camera settings with a corresponding change in flash power, but this (for the RF60(x)) only works in non-HSS applications. At least, the compensation effort for the RF60x is indeed always roughly the double of what one would expect normally, so at least it is consistently off.

However, this statement makes sense to me (although I do wonder if this relationship between 1EV camera setting and 2EV flash power is fixed throughout the whole time value range ....?).

The statement only makes sense to me in as much I reckon that they found it difficult to tune the bursts in a manner that would have led to the expected outputs.

Note, however, that the manual states "To compensate 1EV exposure loss in your camera setting...", i.e., they do not distinguish between changes to ISO, aperture or shutter speed. This confirms my initial assumption that the hint about flash power not following the numeric scale anymore is just a flash power phenomenon but independent from shutter speeds specifically.

I can understand that flash output / EV, even for continuous bursts, would remain proportionate to ISO / Aperture stops at 1EV steps, up to the max sync speed.

Well, below the sync-speed you normally never get bursts anyhow. You'll always get regular pulses. There may be a way (through a manual HSS setting) to force the RF60(x) to produce bursts even when the shutter speeds do not require it, but that's not the normal setup.

In any event, there should not be any difference between changing ISO / aperture vs shutter speed whether the shutter speed exceeds the sync speed or not.

However, is it not the case that as the shutter blades become closer and closer together with each stop of shorter exposure time, that more and more of the light from the flash is wasted by hitting the closed parts of the blades ...

Yes, that is true, but the shutter blades only close as much as necessary to cut down one stop of light for each doubling of the shutter speed.

The shutter blades do not distinguish between ambient light and the flash light. Both sources of light are pretty much continuous so they get the same "rejection" treatment from the shutter blades.

would this not explain that need for greater compensating adjustments (eg as per Cactus, 1EV aperture / ISO change equals 2EV power adjustment) ?

No.

The need for greater compensating adjustments comes from the flash output not following the normal power law anymore. Again, if you close down the aperture by a stop, you would have to increase the flash output by two (numerical!) stops (in HSS mode) as well (so that you get one effective stop). This is not specific to changes to shutter speed. The manual states "1EV exposure loss" which could result from stopping down the aperture, decreasing ISO or increasing shutter speed.

Cactus do not show a GN Table for HSS based on Exposure Times, but Pentax do, and the following GN data is detailed for the AF-540FGZII

Interesting.

I'm not sure why the relationship is not more regular. Note, however, that the power loss is less than a stop usually (0.8 EV from 1/250 to 1/500, 0.85 EV next, 0.9 EV next, 1.2 EV next). Notice that there is a 5 stop difference between 1/8000s and 1/250s. The corresponding loss in flash exposure is just ~4.28EV. So there is no disproportionate loss in flash power, on the contrary. Why the relationships are not exact (i.e. 1EV for each doubling of shutter speed), I'm not sure. There are couple of explanation variants which I haven't thought through yet.

Obviously as can be seen there is a 'power loss' for each stop of time value reduction ...... however also clearly it is not a full stop of GN loss for each time value drop.

Correct. Most of the time it is less than a stop. Only the jump from 1/4000s to 1/8000s costs slightly more than a stop. Remember that GN numbers are proportional to f-stops, i.e., an increase by a stop corresponds to a multiplication by the square root of two, just as in f-stops.

The massive drop occurs from 1/180th sec (GN 54) to 1/250th (GN 24.2).... this seems to show the big impact of moving into the continuous burst of output.

Yes, that's 1.84EV of light loss where ideally there shouldn't be none.
However, it makes sense that there is a penalty to pay to get an even exposure across the frame, even when there is only a very small slit formed by shutter blades travelling over it. Note, however, that one should only need to pay that price once. It is the "admission fee" to getting quasi-constant light. From then on, further penalties are just paid in normal EV decrements, as with ambient (continuous) light.

Would be interesting to measure what the corresponding loss on an RF60x is.
Not having a light meter makes this a bit arduous for me, but I may do it some day out of curiosity. According to the RF60x manual, the corresponding loss on an RF60x should be 2 stops (GN 56 -> GN 28) at full power. But at 1/16 power, there is no loss at all. And at 1/128 power, the "loss" is actually a gain of 1.36 EV. This is because each nominal 1EV decrement only led to an actual ~0.5 EV loss, meaning at the end the 2 stop loss that was incurred due to switching to HSS is overcompensated.

Perhaps this is the reason why Cactus changed the exposure step to half the value it should be, in order to provide a larger range of adjustments. If they had used 1 EV steps then the end of the range would have been reached by ~1/16. This is plausible as other HSS solutions often limit the adjustment range to 1/1-1/16. The limitation probably comes from not being able to further lower the output; probably the flash tube wouldn't ignite anymore. While other manufacturers simply restrict HSS adjustments from 1/1-1/16, Cactus apparently decided to provide the full range by manipulating the step size.

I'm not sure I approve of that. On the one hand, one gets finer control (but one gets that through 1/2, 1/3 or even 0.1 EV adjustments as well), on the other hand the numerical relationship between camera adjustments and flash adjustments is lost. I could be missing something, but I personally would have left the adjustment steps untouched and just limited the lowest power level to 1/16 in HSS mode.

Can I assume that the subsequent smaller drops in GN are the consequence of the progressively smaller opening through the shutters for the light, and therefore the progressively grater amount of light wasted hitting the shutters....?

No, not AFAIC. See above.

[GeneV]

I would just like to say that Adorama, of the biggest photography stores in North America rebrand Godox as Flashpoint. I doubt Adorama would be willing to tarnish themselves selling such a terrible product. Maybe if you buy direct from Godox things are no so good but I would suggest at least for North American customers that they can buy in confidence from Adorama.

I'd also say that while the cactus triggers have more functionality they don't necessarily have better usability. You just have to Google to find there are many many happy Godox customers.

The Cactus triggers are great if you have legacy flashes already but the lithium ion batteries in the Godox flashes come into their own with their power and recycling speed. Waiting for flashes to recycle is pretty annoying. Also battery managing multiple sets of AA batteries is also something to consider if using multiple flashes.

Note: I own both Cactus V6, Cactus V6 II, Godox FT16 and Acon triggers.

Agree on all counts, though I only own the Godox and V6. Also the AD200 is truly cross brand. I suppose P-TTL must offer some challenge which Fuji does not.

[mcgregni]

Thanks ClassA for the detailed responses and thoughts in your last post. I am getting what you are saying I think ....


1) The light lost by hitting the shutter blade 'slit' during an HSS exposure is taken equally from the ambient and flash light .... therefore there is no disproportionate loss that is 'slanted' against that flash exposure (that was my term that raised the question originally).


2) There is a high 'price to pay' in flash exposure lost for the initial jump into HSS mode (eg from 1/180th sec to 1/250th sec) and this is evidenced by the GN Tables I quoted from the Pentax Flash Manual, showing approx. 50% loss of GN


3) After that initial 'price' has been paid, further losses due to each further stop shortening of exposure time seems to average out around 1 stop of flash exposure lost, but there is not any fixed relationship such as 1 stop GN change.


4) This slightly inconsistent GN reduction as exposure times reduce is presumably the result of fluctuations in power output in HSS mode .... ie the difference in output between 1/4 and 1/8 power settings, whilst fixed and accurate as a 'stop' difference in normal flash mode, is not fixed as an exact stop in HSS mode, presumably for some technical / electronic reason.


This gives me a good opportunity to use the GN tables for non HSS and HSS flash and make a quick comparison, to see how much difference there is, and therefore we could form a judgement on whether the balance of ambient and flash exposures is significantly slanted against the HSS technique when compared with an ND Filter approach ....


So I have looked at the AF-540FGZ GN Tables for both normal output and HSS output .... I've used the ISO100 / 58mm tables for both .....I've looked at a 4-stop reduction in ambient light, and compared the GN figure that equates to from both GN Tables ;


1) A four stop loss (1/1 power to 1/16th power) results in a GN of 13.5 for a normal flash output
2) A four stop loss (1/180th to 1/2880th) results in a GN of approx. 8.5 for an HSS flash output


(Be aware that the Pentax GN table cannot show HSS Guide Numbers with power output settings as the flashes only provide P-TTL exposure mode with HSS.)


So I see from this that the GN loss between the two types of flash output is approx. 5. Looked at this way, was my original claim that the flash exposure was 'slanted' against the HSS approach as opposed to an ND filter approach, a fair point .... ?