Backscatter.com Strobe Comparison

With all the talk about strobes, I was pleased to see that Berkley White has posted some strobe comparison measurements. He measured the power of the strobes (in the center of the beam) but also the submerged weight of the strobes. Good info!

http://www.backscatter.com/learn/article/article.php?ID=40

Cheers

James

Thanks James,

Yes very pleased, Berkley did a great comparison here and I'd trust it.

I'm so glad he is pushing (as he has been for some time) for more buoyancy to be designed into strobes, etc. But he did tell me that consumers have to request this too, people tend to buy small without knowing or thinking about the consequences underwater.

I'm disappointed the YS-250 is not positive or at least neutral. Very disappointed.

I'd like to get some strobes for real w/a (I have the 110s but they aren't quite adequate for some things I do); anyway looks like I'd only consider used YS-350s now or Ike 200s.

Again Thanks James and Berkley, this was extremely helpful,

Best, Carol

PS - as some of you know I use the Patima BC x 2 plus a bit of corecell foam on my arms with Subal ND20/Sea & Sea 110s/regular ULCS arms etc. It works really well for me for getting the entire system lighter and tweaking different configurations from 105vr + TCs to 16mm wide angle, etc. But I certainly wouldn't add a new strobe that was even heavier than the Sea and Sea 110s (which are slightly buoyant).

Good information. It looks like it's true that the Z-240 is significantly brighter than the DS-125 at least at the center. The weight information is very welcomed. Although, it's an important consideration, there are advantages to small strobes. Smaller size sometimes give you more freedom in strobe placement.

If you asked me the question: where would you add volume to your setup to make it more buoyant, I probably would not choose to increase the size of my strobes.

If you asked me the question: where would you add volume to your setup to make it more buoyant. I probably would not choose to increase the size of my strobes.

I hope that I'm not pushing the thread into an unwanted direction, but I tend to value small size over buoyancy. I would like a more buoyant system, but need a smaller system due to my travel habits.

In general, I also value strobe power over buoyancy.

This is why I chose the very compact S&S DX200 housing even though it's very negative.

However to the point that Carol makes, be an informed buyer and knowing what th trade offs are is just being a smart consumer. To this end, the strobe review is another valuable source.

Take care,

John

Only problem is that compact size means less buoyancy. If you have to add stuff to add buoyancy, then that means more stuff to pack. Probably comes out the same in the end. One advantage of my Subtronics is that they are positively buoyant so they make my rig lighter in the water.

The weight information is very welcomed. Although, it's an important consideration, there are advantages to small strobes. Smaller size sometimes give you more freedom in strobe placement.

 

If you asked me the question: where would you add volume to your setup to make it more buoyant, I probably would not choose to increase the size of my strobes.

Herbko, very right you are.

I'm talking about adding another pair of strobes, just for wide angle. The Sea and Sea 110s I have are adequate for macro and as you say easy to place and not too heavy. But they aren't too good for w/a in my experience.

I hope that I'm not pushing the thread into an unwanted direction, but I tend to value small size over buoyancy. I would like a more buoyant system, but need a smaller system due to my travel habits.

In general, I also value strobe power over buoyancy.

 

This is why I chose the very compact S&S DX200 housing even though it's very negative.

 

However to the point that Carol makes, be an informed buyer and knowing what th trade offs are is just being a smart consumer. To this end, the strobe review is another valuable source.

 

Take care,

John

John, no you are not pushing this thread in any unwanted direction at all and very well said. You and many never need to worry about this but soft tissue muscle strain injuries from carrying a negative housing underwater are a real problem to those unlucky enough to be hit with them (myself included......); and I also know some guys who have had problems. Its one of those things you probably never think of unless it happens to "you". Myself in great pain and not being able to write at all with my right hand for a few months last year was pretty surprising as I'd never had anything like that happen to me before. The negative housing was a major player in the injury as I was using it tons - but per my physical therapist biking also influenced the hand injury.

My injury is better now but I'm really careful!!! (Don't want that to happen again for sure!) And I keep my housings nice and light underwater as injury underwater can also lead to additional complications to divers (pressure related).

Maybe someone will come up with a housing/strobes someday that is both small and light but that doesn't exist now. So I vote for light (albeit larger); but as was stated strobes shouldn't be so big that you can't place them for macro.

Thanks for your responses and thanks again to Berkley for his very helpful report.

Best, Carol

You and many never need to worry about this but soft tissue muscle strain injuries from carrying a negative housing underwater are a real problem to those unlucky enough to be hit with them (myself included......);

Not only that but a severely negative housing is hard to hold steady for macro and especially difficult for 1-handed shooting.

Anyone else puzzled by the DS125 and DS51 having the same guide number in testing? I know the coverage and fall-off are significantly different, but I feel like the DS125 is far more powerful than the DS51 in my experience.

It would be interesting to get some manufacturer input on this thread. Why are they so way off in their specs, and should we be able to return a strobe with a refund if they do not put out the light they advertise.

Scorpio,

The DS125 in my opinion puts out far more light than a ds51 (I have both now) but in not in a tight square pattern. The pattern from the DS125 is really broad and even - which is awesome in a compact wideangle strobe. I used the DS51 in the pool the other day and if you take a photo of the bottom of a dark pool you can really see the square pattern well.

RE the buoyancy of a housing - most housings are negative w/ a macro port setup and pretty much neutral w/ a dome and WA strobes. Even my big Seacam is just about perfect w/ the dome and 2X DS200's. The problem is the macro kit where you're having to hold it up steady for any length of time to focus.

My solution is a faired (shaped) buoyancy collar. To me this is the way to go: easy to pack, light, and only used when needed, so I don't have to have the extra bulk on the housing when shooting WA.

Cheers

James

[edited typo]

James,

Your buoyancy collar for macro solution is awesome! I also use a buoyancy collar that Ryan Canon made for me for use with the 105vr - but it can't be as thick as yours because of the focus knob configuration on the Subal 105vr port.

But my wide angle unlike yours: 8" dome port/16mm lens/Subal ND20/d200/4X 8" ULCS arms and 2X Sea and Sea 110 strobes is 3-3/4 lbs negative in fresh water (I weighed it underwater and piece by piece in comparison). If I add the Fix focus light it is 4 lbs negative plus and that is for the wide angle!!!

I can handle the camera/ND20 for use without the strobes and ultralight arms and add one of my Patima BC floats to buoy it up for under/overs. It is negative but not too without the strobes and strobe arms/clamps.

But with the strobes and arms and macro it is really negative. With the 105vr and 2X TC well lets just say I'm pumping up those Patima BCs! Can't get enough corecell on that ND20 alone for the 105vr. So with the 105vr etc I use 2X Patima floats, a little corecell on 2 of the arms and the buoyancy ring that Ryan made me. It is very light and balanced that way - spread out in different areas of the housing - and surprisingly less bulky than long and fat buoyancy arms, etc.

But wow would some YS-350 strobes help me out underwater!!! Or a housing that isn't so negative but most of the d200 housings are quite negative some even more than mine.

Thanks a lot for the post James, Best Carol

Anyone know if the buoyancy tests the Berkley did with the strobes was with or without batteries?? Obviously, this could affect the buotancy greatly! I read the article and never came across this information.

in the article, he says

Weight (strobe head with batteries)

so I assume the tests are with the batteries...

scott

For quick comparison.......

Underwater weights of strobes according to the manufacturers published specs along with Backscatter's findings, translated from pounds to grams for consistency (454g=1 lb) (28g= 1oz), in parenthesis.

S&S 110 10g buoyant (59g buoyant)

S&S 250 80g buoyant (113g neg)

S&S 350 300g buoyant (254g buoyant)

INON 240 75g neg (59g neg)

Ikelite DS 51 NA (86g neg)

Ikelite DS 125 142g neg (113g neg)

Ikelite DS 200 NA (27g neg)

As pointed out in the article, Backscatter's research done in fresh water. Not sure what kind of water the manufacturers weighed their strobes in.

As far as the question regarding batteries or not......I'll go out on a soft coral limb and strongly suggest that strobes with dedicated packs were indeed weighed with batteries installed. INON states in their literature that underwater weight includes 4 NIMH batteries.....

Only major weight discrepancy that I see is in the difference between the article's findings and the "official" S&S 250PRO specs.......according to S&S that model is positive underwater whereas in the article it is stated by Backscatter to be negative..........

The weight will also depend upon the mounting system used. My guess is the manufacturer weights do not include an Ultralight ball or anything like that. I bet Berk weighed them w/ mounting hardware included but that's an assumption.

Cheers

James

Scorpio,

 

The DS125 in my opinion puts out far more light than a ds51 (I have both now) but in not in a tight square pattern. The pattern from the DS125 is really broad and even - which is awesome in a compact wideangle strobe. I used the DS51 in the pool the other day and if you take a photo of the bottom of a dark pool you can really see the square pattern well.

I still think the DS125 is hotter even in the center.

most housings are negative w/ a macro port setup and pretty much neutral w/ a dome and WA strobes.

Not my experience. I just did a trip with an Aquatica with dome and four of the new fangled buoyancy arm sections and the unit was still negative. Deb's Ikelite housing with Ike dome and 2 DS51's with two positively buoyant arms was still negative. My Subal ND2 was also plenty negative with dome port.

One fellow divers Titan, which weighs 40 kilos out of the water, was perfectly neutral with a dome port.

One fellow divers Titan, which weighs 40 kilos out of the water, was perfectly neutral with a dome port.

40 kilos? How does he lift it off the deck?

One way to compare the strobes is to look at the bang you get for the weight in air of the strobe. I think higher GN/weight is better and it's better to make buoyancy adjustments in places other than the strobe. Of course you have to take into consideration the width of the beam and it's uniformity.

It does seem clear from theory and practice that you paid at least a factor of 2 in output power/weight for the redder color output of the Ike strobes.

What I missing in this comparison, is an image of the light circle as in the modeling lights comparison that was here also, this can give you a lot of info about the light spread and the overall performance of the strobe.

And of course I would like to see the SB 105 in this comparison.

The weight will also depend upon the mounting system used. My guess is the manufacturer weights do not include an Ultralight ball or anything like that. I bet Berk weighed them w/ mounting hardware included but that's an assumption.

 

Cheers

James

Hey everyone,

The strobes were all tested without third party mounting hardware (i.e., Ultralight adapters, etc.), but if there was hardware that comes with the strobe (i.e., Sea and Sea fix bolt) it was included. Basically, if it came with the strobe, it was included with the test.

All strobes were tested with batteries. In the case of strobes that take AA batteries, (i.e., YS-110, Z240, etc.) they were tested with rechargeable NiMH batteries.

Best regards,

Jim

The DS125 in my opinion puts out far more light than a ds51 (I have both now) but in not in a tight square pattern. The pattern from the DS125 is really broad and even - which is awesome in a compact wideangle strobe. I used the DS51 in the pool the other day and if you take a photo of the bottom of a dark pool you can really see the square pattern well.

This is a great comparison. Its nice to have this data and thanks for spending the time to put this up.

The problem with the data as Jim points out on the site is that guide number is a horrible measure. Guide number without coverage ange can't tell you the power of the strobe. This is why the DS125 and DS 51 are the same guide number in the center. As soon as you spread the beam you need a lot more power to keep the guide number up. It would be nice to see a guide number measurement at 45, 60 and 80 degrees from the center as well.

The other metrics that are important are number of full power flashes and recycle time. These are two areas that the DS125 does well in. These are important for digital TTL as well as for the large capacity of cards these days.

As soon as you give us something valuable (as was this review) we are sure to ask for more. Keep up the good work.