Need more power for fish photography

Hey guys -

I've got a recent craze for fish photography and behavior, but these guys don't let me get very close. I prefer slow film, but I'm struggling to get DOF that goes from the mouth to the eyes when shooting portraits. I realize that getting my D2x housed will solve this problem, but I'd like to continue to shoot velvia on occasion.

Basically, my question is which strobes will give me a significant increase in power over my YS 120s? DS strobes would be nice, but I'm willing to trade off digital compatability if necessary. I also wonder whether the warmer Ike lights will not transmit as well as the cooler sea and sea. I'm leaning towards the 200s, which a number of users seem to swear by. Remember that coverage isn't as much of an issue here as raw power.

Any other suggestions for reliable blazing power? Must be TTL (FILM) compatible of course.

Thx

Comments on the YS 350 would be appreciated too. WOuld be nice to stick with one system if all else stacks up. Why don't more people use these?

The SS200's are the most powerful and reliable strobes I've ever used (but I've never used S&S strobes), and I also love their color. But remember that they are rechargeable only, they don't take alkaline batteries, that's why I also have an Ikelite 100a to use on places where there is no electrical power.

I have the impression that the SS200 is smaller than the YS-350, but I can be wrong on this. I saw a strobe comparison chart (Ikelite versus Sea&Sea), but don't remember where (Ikelite site?).

Hi,

I have 2 SS200's and I sometimes use them for fish photography. They are 200 watt-seconds vs something like 110-120 for the YS120. The nice thing about the 200's is that they float in water - meaning they don't add underwater weight to your rig. The Ikes are absolutely bullet-proof.

The YS350 is slightly larger, but also more powerful. And a LOT more expensive.

Cheers

James

Here is that strobe comparison chart that I told you about, but it seems that it hasn't been updated for a while, they don't have the Sea&Sea YS-350 there, only the YS-300. I hope this helps.

Hi,

 

I have 2 SS200's and I sometimes use them for fish photography.  They are 200 watt-seconds vs something like 110-120 for the YS120.  The nice thing about the 200's is that they float in water - meaning they don't add underwater weight to your rig.  The Ikes are absolutely bullet-proof.

 

The YS350 is slightly larger, but also more powerful.  And a LOT more expensive.

 

Cheers

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

More powerful in watt seconds but in light output? Ike rates the UW guide number of the 200s at 38. Sea & Sea rates the LAND guide number of the 350 at 32. There must be a discrepancy - is the Sea and Sea rated in meters?

Watt-seconds is watt-seconds - it's a pure power rating. A strobe that puts out 1000 watts for .2 seconds has a 200 watt-second rating.

Guide number is a complex equation that takes into account power and coverage. A strobe could be super-powerful, but if it's really really wide, then it can have a low guide number.

If a 200 watt second strobe like the Ike SS200 put out all of it's power into an area the size of a silver dollar (instead of a trampoline sized circle) then it would cook the subject - literally! :-)

Cheers

James

I understand - but how could the 200 be more than twice as powerful? The angle of coverage of both strobes is similar. Note that the LAND GN of the sea and sea is lower than the UW GN of the Ike? Maybe Ike can help.

Interestingly, on Ike's strobe chart he lists the YS 300 GN at UW 36, when SEA & SEA lists the LAND GN at 32 for the 350? What the heck? UW GN should be 1/2 of land GN right?

Probably meters?

Yes, Sea&Sea = meters.

ys-120 doesn't have 110 or 120 W/s. From Ys-60 all the way up including 90 and 120 no improvement in W/s except 3xx series. Sea&Sea strobe’s product names incorporate misleading numbers.

I think I remember even the ys-350 was just something around 120 W/s.

Using film I did not prefer the warmer colour of some strobes (~ 4500K). I’ve found strobe light below 5000K to deliver too warmish results on velvia for macro. But this is just my personal taste and experience.

What about some real heavy and powerful luggage:

Hartenberger 625 TTL with 625 W/s recycling within 0.8 seconds @full power.

Should not leave something to be desired in terms of power

Julian

OMG - those look like amazing strobes! I think I'll hold off on strobe purchases until next year and see if I can justify a pair of these. I swear - if its not one thing it is the next... D2x, Seacam housing, and a new computer to crunch the files... and we are talking about just this month:-( Alex - we should start a broke but happy D2X club! I'm starting to feel very irresponsible - need support of other addicts.

Watt-seconds is a specification of thoe power delivered by the power supply. It's not a specification of light output. Two strobes of equal watt-second ratings are not certain to put out the same amount of total light since conversion efficiency must be considered and you can't assume it's the same for all strobes.

Craig - I notice you are using the Hartenbergers - which ones? Do you use them WA and Macro?

I understand the power rating vs GN, but the discrepancies are too large to be accountedd for by efficiency don't you think? Meters vs Ft seems a logical explanation.

Anyone use the Hartenbergers with spot reflector?

I use the Hartenburger 625's with the normal reflector for WA. I use the Z220's for macro. There are times when I wish I had a lttle more power for macro but the 625's are huge compared to the Z220's. Comparing the two, the 625's have about 2 stops more intensity and a broader beam with the normal reflector. The spot reflector adds another stop to that. That's a lot of macro light! I'd find it difficult at times to hold the power down unless I used ISO 50.

Yes, I agree that efficiency doesn't explain the discrepency with the guide numbers. I think it's feet vs. meters as well. I didn't want anyone to think that watt-seconds is a direct comparison of light output though.