watts/sec and the new Sunpaks

Anyone know if the new sunpaks are for real in their w/s estimations?
I expect the "lower" companies to jack these specs up, but sunpak? 500
w/s for $300; 800w/s for $350. Is this true?

this is one of the 800w/s from B&H

http://tinyurl.com/qhy4w

wrote:
Anyone know if the new sunpaks are for real in their w/s estimations?
I expect the "lower" companies to jack these specs up, but sunpak? 500
w/s for $300; 800w/s for $350. Is this true?


B&H have the units wrong too. Energy is NOT defined by Watts divided by
seconds.

Energy = watts _multiplied_ by seconds
= W*s or W.s
= joules

Outside the photographic world energy is measured in 'joules'.
Within the photographic world energy is measured in 'watt seconds'

Not exactly what I meant. However inaccurate the w/s measure is - some
companies boost their numbers (true watts; effective watts - or
whatever the terminology is). Is Sunpak doing that? In other words,
is Sunpak's 800w/s really 400 or 320 - even if 400 and 320 aren't the
proper meausres either.

wrote:
Anyone know if the new sunpaks are for real in their w/s estimations?
I expect the "lower" companies to jack these specs up, but sunpak? 500
w/s for $300; 800w/s for $350. Is this true?

this is one of the 800w/s from B&H

http://tinyurl.com/qhy4w

check:
http://www.alienbees.com/
http://www.white-lightning.com/

In article . com,
wrote:

Anyone know if the new sunpaks are for real in their w/s estimations?
I expect the "lower" companies to jack these specs up, but sunpak? 500
w/s for $300; 800w/s for $350. Is this true?

this is one of the 800w/s from B&H

http://tinyurl.com/qhy4w

Watt seconds are like horse power. They don't tell you what the useable
aomount of power is.

For lighting the only numbers that matter are output. And they are
expressed as ecps, bcps both over a specified angle, guide number or f
stop.

Watt seconds are only the capacity of the flash and the actual useable
capacity is reduced by the efficiency of the capacitors, the diameter
and length of the wiring, the size and number of connectors, the
diameter and length of the flash tube, the design and coverage of the
reflector.

Think a minute. If watt seconds were output and the flash is used for
direct and bare bulb shots the WS remain the same, the actual outputs
would differ by several stops.

Best thing is to stop referring to WS or Joules and buy a flash based on
output and the features you need.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

Bob Salomon wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

Anyone know if the new sunpaks are for real in their w/s estimations?
I expect the "lower" companies to jack these specs up, but sunpak?
500 w/s for $300; 800w/s for $350. Is this true?

this is one of the 800w/s from B&H

http://tinyurl.com/qhy4w

Watt seconds are like horse power. They don't tell you what the
useable aomount of power is.

For lighting the only numbers that matter are output. And they are
expressed as ecps, bcps both over a specified angle, guide number or f
stop.

Watt seconds are only the capacity of the flash and the actual useable
capacity is reduced by the efficiency of the capacitors, the diameter
and length of the wiring, the size and number of connectors, the
diameter and length of the flash tube, the design and coverage of the
reflector.

Think a minute. If watt seconds were output and the flash is used for
direct and bare bulb shots the WS remain the same, the actual outputs
would differ by several stops.

Best thing is to stop referring to WS or Joules and buy a flash based
on output and the features you need.

Very good explanation.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

OK....this is my last stab at this. I believe you. W/s is not a good
measurement. You completely miss my question.

I provided a link to the ad. I know you didn't look at it, because the
only measurement there other than dimensions and weight is w/s. In
fact, most of those ads are like that. That is how they have chosen to
do it. Are they wrong? Maybe. People in this group can't even agree
on it. Doesn't matter.

So I am not asking a highly technical question. I am only asking about
advertising intergrity in numbers that are used -- however inaccurage
they are. I appreciate that you know a lot about this - but I am
hoping for someone who knows the answer to the question asked.

B&H have the units wrong too. Energy is NOT defined by Watts divided by
seconds.

They are not saying watts divided by second. The term w/s means
watts per second.

On 3 Mar 2006 16:26:33 -0800, wrote:

Anyone know if the new sunpaks are for real in their w/s estimations?
I expect the "lower" companies to jack these specs up, but sunpak? 500
w/s for $300; 800w/s for $350. Is this true?

this is one of the 800w/s from B&H

http://tinyurl.com/qhy4w

This 800w/s is actually 320w/s

Check this link out. It specifies the true wattage and the
effective wattage

http://www.alienbees.com/specs.html

wrote:
OK....this is my last stab at this. I believe you. W/s is not a good
measurement. You completely miss my question.

I provided a link to the ad. I know you didn't look at it, because
the only measurement there other than dimensions and weight is w/s.
In fact, most of those ads are like that. That is how they have
chosen to do it. Are they wrong? Maybe. People in this group can't
even agree on it. Doesn't matter.

So I am not asking a highly technical question. I am only asking
about advertising intergrity in numbers that are used -- however
inaccurage they are. I appreciate that you know a lot about this -
but I am hoping for someone who knows the answer to the question
asked.

Your question was answered, but it may not seem like it. Note that it
was said that it is OUTPUT that is important not INPUT. When a manufacturer
list output they are generally giving you good information, if they list
input they are not. If the information does not say which it is you can
guess it is input. In addition many like to use some sort of information
that indicates the light on the subject at a given distance. That will
usually be measured at the telephoto setting if the flash has one.

In short there are too many factors, especially with modern equipment to
draw many safe conclusions from specs provided. Best bet is comparison test
done by using the same techniques and or your personal test of the
equipment.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit