# Flashpoint- m series vs dg series?



## JustJazzie (Dec 9, 2013)

I'm really looking into the flashpoint strobes on adorama.

The m series (320m and 620m I believe) get amazing reviews, but the "wedding kit" I have my eye on has the dg series which don't get reviewed as well. I'm honestly kind of lost as to the difference. Can anyone enlighten me??

http://www.adorama.com/FP620MK.html

http://www.adorama.com/FP600DG.html


----------



## tirediron (Dec 9, 2013)

"DG" stands for digital; the DG line has a digital display instead of mechanical potentiometers to adjust the settings.  As far as I know, they DG series is essentially the product with a different control panel, but with some minor changes to the case, etc.


----------



## JustJazzie (Dec 9, 2013)

tirediron said:


> "DG" stands for digital; the DG line has a digital display instead of mechanical potentiometers to adjust the settings.  As far as I know, they DG series is essentially the product with a different control panel, but with some minor changes to the case, etc.



Thanks so much!!


----------



## Derrel (Dec 9, 2013)

I see just a few differences. The DG is their brand new line, and it has a multi-LED modeling light feature, whereas the older 620M uses a traditional incandescent light bulb for the modeling lamp. The newer DG also has a faster recycle time of 1.5 seconds on AC power, while the older 620M is listed as 2.5 seconds maximum recycle time. Both are fan-cooled, and both ship with an 8 inch diameter reflector as standard.

I am a bit of a traditionalist, so I'm usually more inclined to go with the "older" and "proven" technology, so for me, the incandescent modeling lamp option holds greater appeal than an LED array.

Here's a pretty good article I found last week, discussing and showing the Flashpoint 320M and 620M-style of Flashpoint lights, as well as measuring their output versus Alien Bees lights. I know the M-series "style" has been on the market around 15 years. The M-series is the newer version which can use both AC wall power OR DC from a battery. The Flashpoint M-series are made by the Mettle company.

product review | adorama flashpoint studio gear | Clickin MomsClickin Moms


----------



## JustJazzie (Dec 9, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I see just a few differences. The DG is their brand new line, and it has a multi-LED modeling light feature, whereas the older 620M uses a traditional incandescent light bulb for the modeling lamp. The newer DG also has a faster recycle time of 1.5 seconds on AC power, while the older 620M is listed as 2.5 seconds maximum recycle time. Both are fan-cooled, and both ship with an 8 inch diameter reflector as standard.  I am a bit of a traditionalist, so I'm usually more inclined to go with the "older" and "proven" technology, so for me, the incandescent modeling lamp option holds greater appeal than an LED array.  Here's a pretty good article I found last week, discussing and showing the Flashpoint 320M and 620M-style of Flashpoint lights, as well as measuring their output versus Alien Bees lights. I know the M-series "style" has been on the market around 15 years. The M-series is the newer version which can use both AC wall power OR DC from a battery. The Flashpoint M-series are made by the Mettle company.  product review | adorama flashpoint studio gear | Clickin MomsClickin Moms



Derrel to the rescue again!! Thanks for the help. And here I thought I'd narrowed it down to the m series for the dials....but that quicker recycle time is tempting. You know, because a second is SUCH a long Time. ;-)


----------



## Derrel (Dec 9, 2013)

I think the 1.5 second maximum power recycle time for the DG model versus 2.5 seconds for the M-series model reflects different, perhaps slightly more-efficient capacitor technology or at least different design in the DG-series monolights as opposed to the older M-series design. One of the things about studio flash is that it is a product that is sold to a great degree based on numbers and specifications, MUCH more so than on comparisons. Studio lights are sold largely through print ads and on-line specification sheets, so even a slight edge is seen as an advantage by the seller. And to be fair, some years ago, I found that one of the industry standards on recycle was that the ready light time could represent only 85% re-charge, not 100% full, total recharge of the capacitors. Again, showing that even a minor advantage is deemed "an advantage".

Same goes with the Paul C. Buff model numbers; their Alien Bee 800 model stores 320 Watt-seconds; its flash output after a 3-second recycle is a mix of f/10 or f/11 flash pops. At the same distance, the Flashpoint 320M, a 150 Watt-second model, after a 3-second recycle consistently fires with a flash pop that measures f/11, shot after shot after shot, across the same 10-shot trial length.

I just want to point out that* the $279 Alien Bee 800* *puts out the same flash output*, more or less, of f/10 to f/11, after a full charge, *as the $99.99 Flashpoint 320M, *which in a 10-shot string, output f/11 each and every time.

Just comparing the numbers, the Alien Bee 800, the 320 Watt-second flash, overstates by 480 units. The Flashpoint 320M is a 160 Watt-second flash which overstates by 160 units.

Moving to the Flashpoint 620M model...it CONSISTENTLY put out at least one full f/stop MORE light than the Alien Bee 800 unit, with an f/16 minimum, and an f/18 maximum, so the flashpoint 620M easily beat the Alien Bee 800 and its f/10 or f/11 output.

The WEAKEST flash of the four tested is the Alien Bee 400 model. DO not be persuaded by the silly theories of "old flash tubes" on the Bees, put forth by ignorant commenters in her article...it's not the age of the flashtube that's at issue here.


----------



## JustJazzie (Dec 9, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I think the 1.5 second maximum power recycle time for the DG model versus 2.5 seconds for the M-series model reflects different, perhaps slightly more-efficient capacitor technology or at least different design in the DG-series monolights as opposed to the older M-series design. One of the things about studio flash is that it is a product that is sold to a great degree based on numbers and specifications, MUCH more so than on comparisons. Studio lights are sold largely through print ads and on-line specification sheets, so even a slight edge is seen as an advantage by the seller. And to be fair, some years ago, I found that one of the industry standards on recycle was that the ready light time could represent only 85% re-charge, not 100% full, total recharge of the capacitors. Again, showing that even a minor advantage is deemed "an advantage".  Same goes with the Paul C. Buff model numbers; their Alien Bee 800 model stores 320 Watt-seconds; its flash output after a 3-second recycle is a mix of f/10 or f/11 flash pops. At the same distance, the Flashpoint 320M, a 150 Watt-second model, after a 3-second recycle consistently fires with a flash pop that measures f/11, shot after shot after shot, across the same 10-shot trial length.  I just want to point out that the $279 Alien Bee 800 puts out the same flash output, more or less, of f/10 to f/11, after a full charge, as the $99.99 Flashpoint 320M, which in a 10-shot string, output f/11 each and every time.  Just comparing the numbers, the Alien Bee 800, the 320 Watt-second flash, overstates by 480 units. The Flashpoint 320M is a 160 Watt-second flash which overstates by 160 units.  Moving to the Flashpoint 620M model...it CONSISTENTLY put out at least one full f/stop MORE light than the Alien Bee 800 unit, with an f/16 minimum, and an f/18 maximum, so the flashpoint 620M easily beat the Alien Bee 800 and its f/10 or f/11 output.  The WEAKEST flash of the four tested is the Alien Bee 400 model. DO not be persuaded by the silly theories of "old flash tubes" on the Bees, put forth by ignorant commenters in her article...it's not the age of the flashtube that's at issue here.



Very interesting! That article you linked in my other lighting post definitely talked me out of  AB's and for some reason I was originally under the impression that the flashpoint wasn't fan cooled. I was happy to learn that was incorrect. 

It may be a while before I am able to invest, but it's nice to narrow down what I'm saving up for! Until then, I guess I'll have to keep working miracles with my cowboy studio junk, and pray I don't break anymore light bulbs. Hehehe.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 9, 2013)

The 320M model is NOT fan-cooled, but the 620M and the 300DG ARE fan-cooled. Fans are not necessary on lower-output lights, or when lights are used "open". The type and Wattage of the modeling lamp can influence the need for a cooling fan, or not. As flash recycle speeds get shorter, the need for fan cooling goes up, due to the way high-speed recycle flash units often end up being shot.

Case design and case material can influence the need for a cooling fan. Solid metal-case units can conduct heat away much faster and better and more efficiently than polycarbonate type housings. Basically, the manufacturers of flash units determine on which specific models a cooling fan is needed.

One of the BENEFITS of convection-cooled flashes is that they can be run off of DC battery power with no need for cooling fans, which can be power-eaters. I think also, this might be an area where LED modeling lights have an advantage over incandescent bulb modeling light systems. On most battery-powered setups, it's been the norm NOT TO USE the modeling lamps, except for very quick previews, as a way to maximize battery power.


----------



## JustJazzie (Dec 9, 2013)

Derrel said:


> The 320M model is NOT fan-cooled, but the 620M and the 300DG ARE fan-cooled. Fans are not necessary on lower-output lights, or when lights are used "open". The type and Wattage of the modeling lamp can influence the need for a cooling fan, or not. As flash recycle speeds get shorter, the need for fan cooling goes up, due to the way high-speed recycle flash units often end up being shot.  Case design and case material can influence the need for a cooling fan. Solid metal-case units can conduct heat away much faster and better and more efficiently than polycarbonate type housings. Basically, the manufacturers of flash units determine on which specific models a cooling fan is needed.  One of the BENEFITS of convection-cooled flashes is that they can be run off of DC battery power with no need for cooling fans, which can be power-eaters. I think also, this might be an area where LED modeling lights have an advantage over incandescent bulb modeling light systems. On most battery-powered setups, it's been the norm NOT TO USE the modeling lamps, except for very quick previews, as a way to maximize battery power.


So much to consider!!! Now I know why I ran from strobes when I "researched" my first set of lights!


----------

