Steven Bigler wrote:
GET THIS!!!!!!!!... Sunpak MS-4000 Monolights

They are long discontinued... but findable if you are lucky!!!

Yeah, so when they break it'll be near impossible to find replacable parts!

Go with the Alien Bees, The lights work very good, and are far more adjustable in their power settings. They'll take a beating and they've got some of the best customer service in the business. I tried the Brolly box and it broke on my first shoot. Strangly, I'm glad I did because it was a pain to set up. I'd stick to an octabox. The 800 is definitly your best bet as the power can be lowered enough to work in most ambiant light situations yet can be cranked up to compete with the sun from a few feet off.

Steven Bigler wrote:
GET THIS!!!!!!!!... Sunpak MS-4000 Monolights

misery loves company..
just cause your stuck with them, you want some one else to suffer...

Steven Bigler wrote:
GET THIS!!!!!!!!... Sunpak MS-4000 Monolights

They are long discontinued... but findable if you are lucky!!!

Why post so many pictures of the same thing? It's childish and a waste of bandwidth.

The Sunpaks's are fine if cheap. In 20 years I've never had to send a flash in for repair. On the other hand, Alien Bees are excellent and you can't go wrong with them.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
If you're shooting digital, because of the latitude of a CCD you will almost certainly not need the 1600 or 800w/s versions. I have a 400 w/s and it's perfect - I get f/5.6 for most exposures with my camera set on 100asa but if I want more DOF I can just dial the camera's sensititivity up to 400asa and it's fine.

mjr.

That's not entirly true. First, When you need more light, why subject yourself to adding noise to your images by bumping up the iso? Secondly, the b400 doesn't have enough power to compete with the sun for outdoor shooting.
For fun, I just took a reading of the sky (not the sun) and come up with f32 at 250 with an iso of 100. My b800 only came up with f22 from distance of 6-8 feet and only f11 at around 12 feet. And this was with a bare bulb...No difusser.

Ed Remington wrote:
That's not entirly true. First, When you need more light, why subject yourself to adding noise to your images by bumping up the iso?

As you know, that's camera-dependent to a certain extent. I've been pretty surprised by how well my S3 does at 400 ASA -- I've shot test images and can't tell the difference. So this is one of those "your mileage may vary" kind of things.

Ed Remington wrote:
Secondly, the b400 doesn't have enough power to compete with the sun for outdoor shooting.

Of course not. I wouldn't try to use a strobe as a main light outdoors anyhow - there's that great big fusion-powered softbox up there and it works fine (though it's a bit harder to move)  Again this is one of those "your mileage may vary" kind of things but I generally consider a strobe to be "fill" outdoors because that's virtually always what it amounts to. I've got a 4800w/s speedotron black line kit that I'd haul out if I absolutely needed to try to compete with the sun and needed the exercise. Generally, though, I think of competing with the sun as a losing proposition.

I guess I think of the AB heads as good small general-purpose heads. At that price point that's what you expect them to be and that's pretty much what they are. So are the little sunpaks.

mjr.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Generally, though, I think of competing with the sun as a losing proposition.

Yep, competing with the sun isn't an easy task,(and quite a bitch to move!) But for those working on a budget, at least with the b800 or b1600, you have a fighting chance

Steven Bigler wrote:
GET THIS!!!!!!!!... Sunpak MS-4000 Monolights

They are long discontinued... but findable if you are lucky!!!

I have one of those. Compared to my AB, it's heavy; its output is less adjustable; it can't be put on a light boom; and the slave sensor is too sensitive.  But I still love it.  It was mega cheap.

That's not entirly true. First, When you need more light, why subject yourself to adding noise to your images by bumping up the iso? Secondly, the b400 doesn't have enough power to compete with the sun for outdoor shooting.
For fun, I just took a reading of the sky (not the sun) and come up with f32 at 250 with an iso of 100. My b800 only came up with f22 from distance of 6-8 feet and only f11 at around 12 feet. And this was with a bare bulb...No difusser.

I have learned about the crappy iso problems already i'll go with the 800.
and if I can turn it down great less light I can't turn the 4oo up any more at all.
thanks for all the advice.

Randy Pond Photogaphy wrote:
I just ordered 2 b400's and love them.  I got the DIGI BEE package and was going to get a soft box too, but for now I am happy with this set up.  I had $1000 to play with, I used the extra money for a sekonic light meter and on backdrops...etc.

I hear people say the b800 is better, but I also hear a lot of people say for digital the 400's are fine.  So far with my limited experience I agree, the 400's are awesome.  I love the sun so don't see why I'd want to try and compete with it outdoors anyway.  For my purposes I will use the 400's inside and they do the trick for me there.  Buy the 400's, if u decide later to get the 800's use them as backdrop lights or hair lights.  You'll love alienbees.  I love mine a LOT.

OK, Let me clarify something....

It's not about competing with the sun as in trying to shoot brighter than it. It's about matching the f-stop so that even as a fill light, it fills in the shadows. 5.6 at an iso of 100 just isn't gonna fill in a sunlight reading of f16. You cannot change the iso to compensate, you can only use more power. The dynamic range of digital doesn't mean a thing either...You are still 3 stops off the sunlight. Prepare for a LOT of post production work, and you better be real good at it.  Remember...Get it right in the camera first. 
Now as a hair light, depending on how much depth of field you want in your pics, the b400 may not work. Yes, at low power settings for shallow depths of field, they'll be fine. However if you want to shoot at f8 or f11, your 5.6 hair light is again underpowered. For blonde's, you can get away with 1/2 stop under. (I prefer to match the main light) Where as with brunettes and red heads, you'll need to be about 1/4-1/2 stop over the main light. The same goes for lighting your backdrop, you will need equal power to the main light if you are using a white backdrop and expect it to be white when you shoot it.

With that said, for the small difference in cost between the b400 and the b800, why not give yourself the extra latitude to work correctly both indoors as well as outdoors?

Ed Remington wrote:

OK, Let me clarify something....

It's not about competing with the sun as in trying to shoot brighter than it. It's about matching the f-stop so that even as a fill light, it fills in the shadows. 5.6 at an iso of 100 just isn't gonna fill in a sunlight reading of f16. You cannot change the iso to compensate, you can only use more power. The dynamic range of digital doesn't mean a thing either...You are still 3 stops off the sunlight. Prepare for a LOT of post production work, and you better be real good at it.  Remember...Get it right in the camera first. 
Now as a hair light, depending on how much depth of field you want in your pics, the b400 may not work. Yes, at low power settings for shallow depths of field, they'll be fine. However if you want to shoot at f8 or f11, your 5.6 hair light is again underpowered. For blonde's, you can get away with 1/2 stop under. (I prefer to match the main light) Where as with brunettes and red heads, you'll need to be about 1/4-1/2 stop over the main light. The same goes for lighting your backdrop, you will need equal power to the main light if you are using a white backdrop and expect it to be white when you shoot it.

With that said, for the small difference in cost between the b400 and the b800, why not give yourself the extra latitude to work correctly both indoors as well as outdoors?

Well, thanks for the detailed explanation.  It works for you and that's awesome.  However I already know I don't need my lights outside, I have no interest in that aspect.  I use my 400's indoors and the jump to 800's did play a part of my choice.  I couldn't afford it...I don't think having the 800's is all the important to me or most photographers.  Photography equipment is expensive and I'd hate to see other people getting stuff they didn't need.  I don't need the latitude to work indoors and out...and I saved $$$ for other things.

Del Ihle wrote:
Why post so many pictures of the same thing? It's childish and a waste of bandwidth.

Go lecture your son... I am not him.

I posted them once... send your complaints to Tyler.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
misery loves company..
just cause your stuck with them, you want some one else to suffer...

Doug... I was being helpful... I do not suffer at all.  I love my lights... and buy more as I need them.  Recently found a flashtube maker to build new ones if needed.

My first one has fallen to the ground from a fully extended lightstand (@ 18') I think 3 times.
-the modeling light broke twice, a flash tube once... units perfect!

You members of the Alien Bee cult are welcome to spew all you want, I was just offering a known and proven affordable unit.

Next poster please be one that has owned the same units as I... if you don't know these lights... don't bash.

Brian Diaz wrote:
I have one of those. Compared to my AB, it's heavy; its output is less adjustable; it can't be put on a light boom; and the slave sensor is too sensitive.  But I still love it.  It was mega cheap.

Brian, they CAN be put on a boom... but it needs to be a BIG BOOM... not the little Avenger ones.  On the slave... you need to have it OFF when outside during the day, but in a darker studio it is great, or in a daylight studio, tin foil blocking window glare makes it work fine. 
Yes it is heavy-ish, but it is a complete self contained unit!

Brian... if you have the 12 volt location system, or know of any... I need to buy another one for other units.  (e me directly:  [email protected])

-Steve

Christopher Bush wrote:
but do the sunpaks come in fun colors like 'regurgitated-key-lime green' and 'what's-in-that-puddle yellow'?

Sure... and many many other colors too!  The custom color dept for Sunpak is located at Home Depot in the Rustoleum department!


There are endless suggestions on better lights... but the limit to the thread was $1000

Steven Bigler wrote:

Sure... and many many other colors too!  The custom color dept for Sunpak is located at Home Depot in the Rustoleum department!


There are endless suggestions on better lights... but the limit to the thread was $1000

i think $1000 is a ton of money unless you need the top like profoto or comet, etc.  you can get used speedos, lumedynes (granted, they're not for everyone), normans, etc...

and then go to home depot as suggested above so you can pass them off as bees to impress all of your mm friends

Randy Pond Photogaphy wrote:
Well, thanks for the detailed explanation.  It works for you and that's awesome.  However I already know I don't need my lights outside, I have no interest in that aspect.  I use my 400's indoors and the jump to 800's did play a part of my choice.  I couldn't afford it...I don't think having the 800's is all the important to me or most photographers.  Photography equipment is expensive and I'd hate to see other people getting stuff they didn't need.  I don't need the latitude to work indoors and out...and I saved $$$ for other things.

And your limited experience shows in your response. First, power is not just about shooting indoors. Read my explanation about shooting indoors...Second, You have no idea what most photographers are using. Yes, a lot of guys shoot with Alien Bees. (Myself included)  However, in the world beyond the internet, it's a whole different story. Take a look at what the studios are equipped with and what the pro photographers are shooting with. Profoto, Broncolor, Speedotron and so on. Their power packs start at 1200 ws for a 3 head pack. Thats 400 ws per head, or just under 3 times the output of your lights. Plus they usually have a few of these. Remember, that's entry level gear from these manufactuers. You should see what the high end stuff does

Also, To say that you are never gonna shoot outdoors is hard to beleive. If a client says he/she wants pictures shot at an outdoor location you'd be in trouble. Even if you can get away from shooting, or have no desire to shoot outdoors,  who's to say the OP isn't? Maybe, just maybe he doesn't want to be stuck shooting with shallow depths of field, and higher ISO's and would like to have the added punch just in case.

Now unless you could give the OP a detailed and technically correct explanation as to why he should get lower powered lights and what benefits they offer over their higher powered units. Maybe you should consider telling him about all that stuff you got for spending $55 less for the b400.

Jerry Bennett wrote:
My WL Ultras (same company as the ABs) are fantastic and I've never had a problem with them. When one fell over outside recently, Paul C. Buff fixxed it for like $60.00. They are the only things I've ever thought were worth the money I payed for them.

paul buff is a great company.  i used to shoot wl ultrazaps next to a more expensive bowens espirit unit.  the bowens unit was much more fragile and eventually cracked open (i think i sneezed too close to it), but the wl was solid and consistent.

i don't have any direct experience with the bees, which are understandably popular due to their price, but i think buying from paul buff is a solid bet.

Dumas Photography wrote:
People on thei forum get so far off the main question...

Alien Bees are GREAT lights, they are very portable and come with a GREAT warranty.

If you feel you have graduated later from the Alien Bees, they are easy to sell...  check out Ebay, you won't see a lot of em cuz people like em once they get em...

I picked up two 800's and a 1600 and I have all the light I could ever use...  and then some...  I shoot film, digitial, Medium Format...

The package deals provide a savings...

You're absolutly correct. I luv mine, but I'll be thrilled if and when I am in the market for some higher end equipment.

That said, the OP has a thousand clams for some lighting...well, the Digibee package upgraded to b800s will give him plenty of power to work with and still gives him enough to afford a light meter.

Sounds like a great deal to me!

Brian Diaz wrote:
I have one of those. Compared to my AB, it's heavy; its output is less adjustable; it can't be put on a light boom; and the slave sensor is too sensitive.  But I still love it.  It was mega cheap.

Steven Bigler wrote:
Brian, they CAN be put on a boom... but it needs to be a BIG BOOM...

Haha--in rereading my post, it looks like I meant a boom for lights, not a light-duty boom.  My mistake.    (As it is, if I put the Sunpak on my light-duty, it will make a BIG BOOM when it hits the floor...)

It was the first strobe I bought (as I said, it was mega cheap).  I don't know nothing for super cycler 12 volt location systems.  Sorry.

Ed Remington wrote:
And your limited experience shows in your response. First, power is not just about shooting indoors. Read my explanation about shooting indoors...Second, You have no idea what most photographers are using. Yes, a lot of guys shoot with Alien Bees. (Myself included)  However, in the world beyond the internet, it's a whole different story. Take a look at what the studios are equipped with and what the pro photographers are shooting with. Profoto, Broncolor, Speedotron and so on. Their power packs start at 1200 ws for a 3 head pack. Thats 400 ws per head, or just under 3 times the output of your lights. Plus they usually have a few of these. Remember, that's entry level gear from these manufactuers. You should see what the high end stuff does

Also, To say that you are never gonna shoot outdoors is hard to beleive. If a client says he/she wants pictures shot at an outdoor location you'd be in trouble. Even if you can get away from shooting, or have no desire to shoot outdoors,  who's to say the OP isn't? Maybe, just maybe he doesn't want to be stuck shooting with shallow depths of field, and higher ISO's and would like to have the added punch just in case.

Now unless you could give the OP a detailed and technically correct explanation as to why he should get lower powered lights and what benefits they offer over their higher powered units. Maybe you should consider telling him about all that stuff you got for spending $55 less for the b400.

Dude, you can point out my limited experience but you seem to miss the part where I said I am happy that all works out for you.  I really am happy you are Mr.Photography but trying to point out how limited I am doesn't make me think you're all that and a bag of chips.  Sure you can talk and talk and talk about explanations to me but when it comes down to it, the 400b's are perfect for what I need.  I'm not going to need strobes outside...I am glad you have the power you need, kudos and much praise to you for knowing all about what professionals use.  The 400's will be good for a lot of people, just because they are not a pro name doesn't mean they can not get the job done.  Want to run down my camera too while you're at it and point out all the technical faults it has?  I already did a combined shoot with another photographer guy that paid $10,000 for his camera and the model was WAY happier with the work I did.  So understand this, it doesn't matter to me if my 400's don't work great outside, I won't need them there.  Please go and enjoy life as God's gift to photography and I look forward to your next response to point out how limited my views are. (cough)

Iona Lynn wrote:
P.S. I have an interview on friday for a shooting assignment  wish me luck.

Break a lens! - the good luck wish of photographers. At least, it will be eventually. I bet itll catch on!

Experimental Photoworks wrote:
Ok my goal is prob closer to 600.00
from what I have read the 800 are better than the 400 and the 1600 may be over kill.

I want two strobes maybe three???
a soft box
and a slave.
I like the beauty dish and some very good glamour phgotographers love it.

can I get away with a brolly box instead?
I really want to be able to light from the front angles as well as behind the models.

I have lighting small inanimit objects down with hot lights but I need brighter ones.

what is your advice?

If you get the Bees,,,,,can I come over and play
LOL

Randy Pond Photogaphy wrote:

Dude, you can point out my limited experience but you seem to miss the part where I said I am happy that all works out for you.  I really am happy you are Mr.Photography but trying to point out how limited I am doesn't make me think you're all that and a bag of chips.  Sure you can talk and talk and talk about explanations to me but when it comes down to it, the 400b's are perfect for what I need.  I'm not going to need strobes outside...I am glad you have the power you need, kudos and much praise to you for knowing all about what professionals use.  The 400's will be good for a lot of people, just because they are not a pro name doesn't mean they can do a job.  Want to run down my camera too while you're at it and point out all the technical faults it has?  I already did a combined shoot with another photographer guy that paid $10,000 for his camera and the model was WAY happier with the work I did.  So understand this, it doesn't matter to me if my 400's don't work great outside, I won't need them there.  Please go and enjoy life as God's gift to photography and I look forward to your next response to point out how limited my views are. (cough)

What is your issue??? A little mad because I called out your response due to your information being a little misleading. Sorry....(not) I quoted your response because it was flawed. That's it, no more than that. If you think I was slammin you, then you are way off base. So now instead of offering the OP any amount of information to back your reccommendation, you resort to trying to mock me....How nice!

So...for the last time, it's not just about shooting outdoors!!!. Read my whole post. Plenty of it relates to shooting indoors, having enough power to get the right ratios and working at a lower ISO which gives you better quality pictures due to less noise.

Oh, I am far from anyones gift to photography. But I am able to give a technical reasoning behind why I reccommend something.

Ed Remington wrote:
What is your issue??? A little mad because I called out your response due to your information being a little misleading. Sorry....(not) I quoted your response because it was flawed. That's it, no more than that. If you think I was slammin you, then you are way off base. So now instead of offering the OP any amount of information to back your reccommendation, you resort to trying to mock me....How nice!

So...for the last time, it's not just about shooting outdoors!!!. Read my whole post. Plenty of it relates to shooting indoors, having enough power to get the right ratios and working at a lower ISO which gives you better quality pictures due to less noise.

Oh, I am far from anyones gift to photography. But I am able to give a technical reasoning behind why I reccommend something.

Okay Mr.Technical Reasoning, I am not mad...I am just here to share my opinion.  I know there are people that agree with me and just because I can't sit here and give you the technical language that you so desperately seem to need in order to allow anyone else an opinion.  But I do know there are people that could argue with you about technical terms, I just don't feel the need to enter in to it with you.  Why ask me what my issue is?  You're the one that started quoting me and telling me how my responses show my limited experience, when I already stated that.  Are you just trying to be Mr.Obvious Guy?  Listen, enjoy your powerful lights and shooting outside.  I'll enjoy my 400's inside shooting, cuz they meet my needs...and they'll continue to do so...I realize all u say is true about it being good to have more power outside, and good for u.  However, since it takes a lot of repeating it seems, I am saying again...NOT everyone needs that.  I've read numerous posts in other forums that give negatives of having the 800's, I just tried to give another opinion.  I'm done now replying to your posts...

Experimental Photoworks wrote:
Ok my goal is prob closer to 600.00
from what I have read the 800 are better than the 400 and the 1600 may be over kill.

I want two strobes maybe three???
a soft box
and a slave.
I like the beauty dish and some very good glamour phgotographers love it.

can I get away with a brolly box instead?
I really want to be able to light from the front angles as well as behind the models.

I have lighting small inanimit objects down with hot lights but I need brighter ones.

what is your advice?

brolly boxes are kind of like non directional softboxes.  they just put a soft light in a large area, and thus, they probably fall off quickly.  a beauty dish produces a broad light like the brolly box, but has much greater contrast.  the softbox is a directional soft light.  so you can have a bit more control with the shadows especially with a fabric grid.  so the question of brolly box vs. beauty dish resides on whether or not you prefer high contrast lighting or not.  if you want my opinion, since you have a softbox, a brolly box would be just like a second soft source.  it might be in your best interest to learn high contrast (b-dish) as well as softer lighting.  that way you have more combinations of lighting you can learn.

hope that helps
justin

edit: i personally have two B800s and all three of the modifiers you mentioned. i kind of broke my brolly box though.  one of the ribs on the umbrellas bent out of shape.  but i hold myself at partial fault.

Randy Pond Photogaphy wrote:
Okay Mr.Technical Reasoning, I am not mad...I am just here to share my opinion.  I know there are people that agree with me and just because I can't sit here and give you the technical language that you so desperately seem to need in order to allow anyone else an opinion.  But I do know there are people that could argue with you about technical terms, I just don't feel the need to enter in to it with you.  Why ask me what my issue is?  You're the one that started quoting me and telling me how my responses show my limited experience, when I already stated that.  Are you just trying to be Mr.Obvious Guy?  Listen, enjoy your powerful lights and shooting outside.  I'll enjoy my 400's inside shooting, cuz they meet my needs...and they'll continue to do so...I realize all u say is true about it being good to have more power outside, and good for u.  However, since it takes a lot of repeating it seems, I am saying again...NOT everyone needs that.  I've read numerous posts in other forums that give negatives of having the 800's, I just tried to give another opinion.  I'm done now replying to your posts...

OK, don't respond. However, I know you'll read this, so only a simple question...

How can you possibly know what your needs are, and what they'll be in the future when You've only had the lights for a couple weeks yourself???   

Think about it