In the manual it is stated that the Godox Parabolic Light Focusing System is only suited for the H1200P or H2400P. They take no responsibility for accidents that occur with lights of other brands. I would prefer if they included a weight limit
For those who do not understand the price of this modifier, go check the Broncolor version. Can't wait to get my hands on mine. Parabolic is the next step for pro's !
As someone who actually owns this product for the people saying it's just a softbox. No it is NOT, if you are getting softbox results you aren't using it correctly. This thing performs like nothing I've ever used and nothing I own comes close. That being said I am thinking about buying a Broncolor just to see what kind of results I can get from the absolute pinnacle of true parabolic reflectors
What came to mind is a grip head holding an extension arm extending opposite and lower than the modifier with a sand back hanging off of it appropriately. I have found I can use less weight when booming in comparison to the weight needed on a c-stands legs (for the leverage... anti-reverse square law). And there is a good level of adjustability if wanting to boom more or boom less.
[Me, thinking the whole time]: I wonder how this compares to the Glow Rob has used in the past [Rob, strategically waiting until the end] I got you, man
This is the only budget para that actually looks like it might be a true parabola in shape compared to profond/parabolix and other budget option. Would love to see a comparison of this Godox parabola to your profond one in a similar size
Karl Taylor did this. The difference regarding light quality isn’t huge, however the way each of them break down/set up and their durability, make the biggest difference!
if you compare this with the broncolor paras, it's night and day (especially in the flood position). This looks like a softbox, whereas the broncolor, of course, has that unique parabolic look.
Hey Rob. Thanks for all your videos. Definitely have become a fan of your clear and concise reviews. As a relatively new amateur photographer, and very new to lighting control (purchased my first off camera strobe and modifier), I've always been drawn/curious about the true parabolics and "the look" in the flooded or mid position. Now, I realize that I currently do not NEED this modifier, as I do not shoot professionally, nor do I currently shoot beauty, fashion, or fabric. I also have a long way to go to learn about light and shadow etc. You also need a place to use this modifier and the stands to hold it. So here's my limited knowledge questions: 1. Where, out side of typical beauty, fashion do you feel the benefit outweighs (ha, ha) the expense? - I realize this type of modifier is really a need based thing most of the time. 2. Clearly, since Godox recommends using this only with the AD 1200 pro and 2400p, that increases the expense for most people. What did you think when you used the AD 400 pros with it (or did you). 3. Would you recommend using the extension cable/head with this modifier? 4. How often are you reaching for it? I've seen some people put this modifier on a T-bar arrangement so they could step underneath it. Your thoughts?
I'd love to own a (true) parabolic one day but it seems to be such a over priced option despite godox being a cheaper option than broncolor - I think Selens do a range called 'edge' which might be the true budget option if they actually are genuine para designs but never seen a review of them
Even if you hesitate to call this a review, I think it's actually a great one! Critically, you tested(!) the color that comes out of this modifier. I use Broncolor flashes but went cheap because I needed a couple of stripboxes in a pinch and couldn't even get Broncolor ones in time. Result: totally blue light from those boxes compared to my Bron ones, making the shots only usable in B&W. So I learned the hard way that color consistency across your modifiers is really important if you want to limit your headaches ;-)
I just got the Para 177 and I can already tell the quality difference between the two. Godox still looks like a soft box look. Also the pedal effect is not the same as bron. I was excited to see what Godox did and to be honest I was afraid maybe I moved too soon on the broncolor but this showed me I made the right choice. Thanks for this review.
They definitely are. I think that's the overall Godox strategy as it's developing in other categories (LED) now. First they present high value, extreme budget options. Then they use the success of that product to expand the line and start increasing the quality to better serve the upper end of the market. They've already accomplished this in Flash. They are pretty much there in LED. And are now applying phase one to new sectors like gimbals, microphones, and accessories.
@@robhallphoto so true. Remember all of our humble beginnings with the AD200 and TT350. Now I have a whole battery of Flashpoint / Godox lighting. Have no complaints at all. Just results and satisfied clients.
Very excited about these. I like my 47in profond but always knew it just isn't quite the same. I'll probably get the 88 and eventually replace my profond with the 128. I'm sad the 158 is the biggest good offering. Often I use a 7ft westcott and long for a Para 222 or even a 177. May have to settle for the 70in profond for that purpose.
I believe that in the most extended mode it might provide a softer light when it isnt defused and little to no hotspot. Its like a soft contrastly light. I own 3 of these and a broncolor 222
It’s completely different, an octabox sends light in all directions, as it’s a diffuser. This sends light in one specific direction, and the light is mostly parallel. It’s hard to explain in words but Karl Taylor has a great video showing the difference.
Great video, nicely done as always, but I gotta say, this looks like a nightmare transport, set up, and manipulate. In a studio setting it may be great but on location - no way. For my purposes, I use a pair of AD200s mounted in the eVolve twin head shooting into a silver beaded 51" umbrella. The light is mounted to a stand so the weight is balanced perfectly over the stand legs, and I can easily move the modifier in and out to achieve a very similar effect. The umbrella was less than $50 and everything I need fits into cases I'm already carrying on location.
That's great, but an umbrella is in no way comparable to a parabolic reflector. An umbrella can't align with the center of the light source, so regardless of the shape of the umbrella, light cannot collimate in the uniform fashion like a parabolic. This means an umbrella can't achieve any of the unique characteristics of a PR.
@@robhallphoto I understand the results will not match exactly, but given the trade-offs in hassle and expense, the umbrella is preferable for my situation. It would be interesting to conduct a double blind test and see how drastic the difference is. Maybe I'll do one for my channel. Have a good one, keep up the great work.
@@MattSpaugh Absolutely If the lighting equipment is so disruptive (due to size, weight, or complexity) that you opt not to use it, then there's no point in owning it. I think a double blind would be interesting, I'm sure there's a lot of scenarios where people would either be unable to tell the difference, or even prefer the umbrella. But, say using it 10 feet away in a bright scenario, the Para (perhaps a smaller size) would be far more usable while the Umbrella would whither in utility due to the inverse square law.
@@robhallphoto Indeed - distance is key to being able to get away with going the umbrella route. I'm primarily at high-volume and headshot photographer but I also do a lot of environmental corporate and product work - all of which allow me to keep my lighting pretty close to the subject. I'm going to look into ordering the smallest one or seeing if any of my local rental houses have one, and see if I can set up a blind test. Have a great day!
Hi Rob, really nice review.. I'm actually using a Glow profound 70" for my fashion and catalogue work, I understand that the Godox are better built but I really like the light output I get from the Glow profond both in focused and defocused positions... but I hear you at the end of the video saying that you clearly see better light characteristics over your glow profound.. I'd really appreciate your clarification on this point and if you think that it's worth upgrading from the Glow to the Godox just because of the light qualities it produces. Thanks.
Hey! Yes, I apologize for having such a fleeting comment on that and not sharing any defense about it in this video, however I think in order to properly display what I'm seeing will take many examples. There's also additional considerations like the size difference, and I may as well show the differences with the Grand Para while I'm at it. Additionally I want to show this not only with light quality on skin, but the light characteristics on a detailed fabric, since performance on textiles is a important as well. All this to say, it needs to be it's own video. I will work on it, but it probably won't be out for another month because I have a lot of other products (QT1200 III, Knowled 600, VSA-##K) that have videos in progress.
@@robhallphoto You are a genius!! Exactly what I would’ve liked to ask you! Skin tones are certainly important but for a fashion photographer point of view it would be even more interesting to see the crispness of the light on some fabrics.. I understand you are busy but i’ll be anxiously waiting for your video now 😜. By the way thx for taking the time to answer so kindly. All the best.
Tantalizing throw away comment at the end there Rob. It would be great if you could expand a bit on the difference(s) you're seeing between the Godox parabolic and the Glow Profond.
This might sound absurd, but could show us some results using diff Godox flash/strobes with this new Godox P158 (or lower models)? Like from V1, AD100, 200, etc... I'm interested in getting the P128. Thanks, Rob!
No, I'm not going to make anything with a V1 / AD100 pro, or any fresnel head in it because it defeats the entire purpose of choosing this light modifier. As for an AD200, any barebulb will function the same, just with different output.
Very informative. I’m not sure I will ever need such an item because my studio is too small, but I really like the ability to shape the light so easily on the subject! What size model you was using by the way? Thanks.
I noticed that you said a speed light wouldn't work the way the para is intended to be used. Is this because the speedlight bulb doesnt protrude? What if I mounted a speed light pointing dead center and three others pointing at 45 degrees from center around that center speed light? Wouldn't this be able to recreate the same light dynamics required? I already own 4 speed lights and studio lights with protruding bulbs but they are too heavy to mount on the end of the rod so I am looking for work arounds.
The reason a barebulb is necessary because it is omnidirectional, firing light in all directions which creates the wide array of straight lines of light exiting the modifier. I do not think configuring speedlights as you describe would do the same because the light would not be uniform and, depending on the zoom used, may not even cover a majority of the inside.
@@robhallphoto Yes I do recall the charts showing how the light must be facing dead center to take advantage of the parabolic shape but then again the bulb protruding will also shoot light out in all directions (omnidirectional), not just dead center. You do raise a good point though, in that the light will not be as uniform as a single light source pointing dead center. I am also wondering if another workaround could be to put one of those speed light diffusers shaped like a globe on the front of the speedlight/s in order to recreate the protruding bulb. I understand that it will cause drop in light power but if I could mount 3 speed lights facing dead center and create a globe diffuser that all 3 lights could fit into that could potentially overcome the issue you described. Unless I am wrong about that. I may end up trying it unless you foresee another issue.
You have to use something like a ad1200 to get a light weight solution. That is pretty much how all true paras were used before monoblocks became popular. Also a protruding strobe is at least 180 degrees while a flash is like 70ish degrees at most and it wont take advantage of what makes a para truly special which is only lighting the edges of the inside to form petals of light.
The Cheap Plastic tightening Knob is the achilles heel of this whole setup. We all know how long these plastic knobs last. I cannot understand who made the choice for this cheap plastic that literally holds all the weight of the entire parabolic including the light. $1800 for this garbage = Mind Blown.
Yep. I also had issues with those plastic knobs on GODOX products. Not strong enough to hold a heavy light modifier + light. My lights just tilt down right away when I attach a heavy modifier. No matter how tight I pull on this plastic knob without breaking it. GODOX make a stronger metal locking mechanism.
@@Flashphotography15 QT1200III is same line as QT600III, just more wattage. Video is coming, I got a ton of new Godox products (Knowled 600, P158, VSA-19K, QT1200III, diffusers) all at the same time so I'm wrapping up the various videos now.
Elnchrom isnt a real parabolic. Almost all parabolics outside of profoto, briese, and Broncolor are basically large umbrellas. A real parabolic becomes like a ring light made with usually 24 petals of light, with no center hotspot when defocused.
You're comparing two completely different products. The Litemotiv series is a rear-mount, run-of-the-mill, collapsible deep softbox (with the word Para in it). The P158 is a parabolic reflector with a focusing arm. The products it competes with are Broncolor, Briese, Profoto, and Parabolix. The Elinchrom Litemotiv 120cm is $450. The Godox product that actually compares to is the QR-P120, which is $119.
Crazy price for a modifier! It's more expensive than most of their lights. Maybe for pros the advantages outway the investment. Especially if you need a heavy-duty stand to go with it. That's a couple of hundred extra. $2000 setup with $700 light? Seems a little odd to me.
Called it - people who look at it from a AD series light cost perspective will be sticker shocked, and those who look at it weighted against alternatives will be unphased.
@@lekkerpruven887 Profoto B1X is $2000, Profoto Para was 5 grand. Broncolor Siros 800 is $2500, Broncolor Para 177 is 6 grand. It's not out of line with the industry for these parabolics to be more expensive than the lights that go in them.
Way too expensive GODOX. I especially can't see myself using this outdoor. Also I have experience with that plastic handle you mention. The AD400 has the exact same plastic handle and it's not able to hold a heavy light modifier. It tilts down. Add a tiny bit of wind and it becomes almost unusable because it's not strong enough of a lock.
Parabolix reflectors lack any quick-release mechanism so it's rather challenging to use them on location. On the other hand, they offer a substantially better quality of light than Godox.
*shockingly inexpensive you mean. Look at the Broncolor Paras. The ones from Godox are the budget version and I think it's a fair price tag for what it is. There isn't a real parabolic modifier out there that costs less than the Godox.
A) I Don't think I've ever "given grief" to Profoto for their pricing. Instead I've made relative arguments, such as a 600 Pro being a superior value to Profoto B1X because the Godox specs are superior and price is cheaper. B) Profoto's 180 cm Para (closest in size) was over $5000. So this P158 from Godox is significantly cheaper relative to options from Profoto and Broncolor. C) I said at the end that I intentionally didn't call / title this a review because I didn't know how it fared against the similar yet cheaper Parabolix.
