Upgrading to Godox/Flashpoint AD400 Strobes

[adamhiram]

I just checked BHPhoto, this one closely matches mine, 4 sections. The one you bought has only 3 despite the description saying 4. I’d send the whole thing back and get the Manfrotto base with the Matthews Baby, linked below.
Matthews Telescopic Baby Stand Extension

It's interesting to see that the product reviews show that others had the same complaints about the incorrect height, flimsy quality of the extension, and a few even replaced it with the exact item you mentioned. Sounds like my best bet is to cancel the RMA with Matthews before they ship anything, return the 2nd item to B&H, and just pickup the components you recommended.

The crazy thing is that other than the smaller footprint, the $10 Flashpoint backlight stand I am replacing feels noticeably sturdier than the Matthews one with the flimsy extension, and that one was only intended for holding speed lights.

Thank you for all your help!

 

[JBPhotog]

The linked Matthews Baby specs say 22 lb. load capacity. I wouldn’t trust plastic levers to that limit in the kit version you are now dealing with.

I apologize for recommending the Matthews kit to you, sorry for all the hassle.

 

[adamhiram]

I spoke with someone at Matthews today and they confirmed a few things:

• The extension column it comes with is not the one in the product description, which is supposed to be 4 sections with a max height of 52". Instead to comes with a smaller 3-section column with a max height of 41".
• The product description appears to describe the Matthews Telescopic Baby Stand Extension that you recommended, and they confirmed would be much sturdier.
• They suspect the main issue with keeping the column vertical is the baby pin on the bottom of the column fitting too loosely into the larger receiver on the base. Unfortunately the pin can't be replaced since it is permanently riveted on. They may consider updating the product to fix this, and possibly even recall unsold stock from retailers.

In the meantime, I have a Manfrotto 003 backlight stand base and Matthews telescopic baby stand extension on the way for roughly the same price, so hopefully that'll do the trick.

 

[JBPhotog]

Good for you to contact Matthews directly. Seems like there are a few errors at play with this product.

I would argue your third bullet point is BS on their part. Having a second look at your photo of the base, the receiver is not vertical so the excuse that the lower pin is too loose is bogus. It just looks like a poorly designed product from the get go.

Anyway, FWIW, I have had zero issues with my two sets of Manfrotto 003 base and the Matthews Baby extension for over 30 years. Also the 003 has a threaded socket on one of the legs if you want to mount a light lower than the centre socket. Hope it all arrives in one piece.

 

[Derrel]

Newer MIC products sold at Bare Bones prices have in many cases led to overall lowering in quality in what were formerly good products as manufacturers struggle to keep up with the onslaught of low-grade made in China products.

 

[Nwcid]

It seem unfathomable to sell a light head that comes with _zero_ way to attatch it to a light stand. Ridiculous.

The extension head has a standard light stand mount, it just doesn't include any way to mount the heavy monolight. The original Xplor 600 extension head included a bag you could hang from the stand, while the Xplor 400 Pro extension head shows the monolight mounted on a super clamp in the product listing, it just doesn't include anything. At twice the price of the older one that included everything, you'd think it would be usable out of the box without spending another $50, or at least explicitly mention it in the listing. That being said, it meets expectations and works great after picking up the necessary additional accessories.

I agree. I had the same thing happen when I ordered my heads for the AD600Pro. It is not clear in the listing you need more parts. Luckily I noticed before I ordered.

I do like how mounting the main body low makes the stands way more stable. I ended up using super clamps.

 

[adamhiram]

I had the same thing happen when I ordered my heads for the AD600Pro. It is not clear in the listing you need more parts.

Not surprised, but still disappointing for something that costs double what the non-pro version did. At least the photos on the product listings don’t imply the super clamp is included, and your Bowens mount extension head came with the actual Bowens mount!

 

[Nwcid]

I had the same thing happen when I ordered my heads for the AD600Pro. It is not clear in the listing you need more parts.

Not surprised, but still disappointing for something that costs double what the non-pro version did. At least the photos on the product listings don’t imply the super clamp is included, and your Bowens mount extension head came with the actual Bowens mount!

That is very true. I got mine on a pretty decent sale so that did not make it as painful.

 

[adamhiram]

In the meantime, I have a Manfrotto 003 backlight stand base and Matthews telescopic baby stand extension on the way for roughly the same price, so hopefully that'll do the trick.

We have a winner (for real this time).

The Manfrotto base is heavy and solid, and the Matthews telescoping baby extension feels solid and fits snugly and securely into the receiver in the base (and is perfectly vertical when fully assembled). It also feels a lot more solid overall than the Matthews setup, even if it wasn't for the other issues affecting it. It holds a 5lb monolight securely, even with the weight off-center, and of course is even more solid with a sandbag on the base.

Some interesting observations to include:

• The legs on the Manfrotto base are 3/4" wide, while the Matthews legs are wider at 1 1/8". While this means the Matthews base is a bit heavier, they both have the same footprint diameter and feel solid, with no noticeable difference in stability.
• The Matthews telescoping baby extension feels a lot stronger than the one included in the Matthews base, which was thin aluminum with the base pin riveted in, and felt like it might snap off with any significant movement. I have no doubt the new one can hold 22lbs, although I really only need 5-7.
• The Matthews telescoping baby extension feels pretty solid, but is definitely different than the one @JBPhotog has. It is made from pretty solid feeling aluminum with metal clamps for each section, but the knobs are still plastic. It feels plenty strong though so no real concerns - I just figured I would share that it is in fact different.
• I will also mention that the Matthews telescoping baby extension did not fit very snugly in the Matthews base, so even after replacing the center column, the base is still not really usable.

Overall I am pretty happy with it so far, but have only set it up to take some test shots at this point. I definitely look forward to spending less time discussing gear and more time shooting! Thanks again, @JBPhotog for all of your help with this.

 

[JBPhotog]

Whoo hoo! Finally a working solution, I am very pleased it has all worked out.

I guess Matthews dropped the metal knobs for plastic. I'm sure they will be fine, all my Manfrotto ART. 004 stands have plastic knobs and three of them were bought in 1981 the other seven @1985 and still going strong.

Looking forward to your tests.

 

[adamhiram]

Whoo hoo! Finally a working solution, I am very pleased it has all worked out.

One more thing I will add - I definitely would not be comfortable putting an Xplor400 on this thing anywhere near full extension, but I also can't imagine ever needing to. At 30" it is very stable, and once I hit 40" I can just as easily use a regular light stand.

 

[JBPhotog]

I'd have no problems putting my AD600Pro's on them. Unless you are using a huge modifier on it, the load capacity should handle it, of course sand bagging it is highly recommended due to the smaller foot print. However, if you need the higher limits and are not limited to a smaller foot print, then I agree a regular stand would be more stable. FWIW, my Manfrotto ART.004 minimum height are 42".

 

[adamhiram]

Some test shots I took creating grid spots. All shots taken at 50mm, f/8, 1250s, ISO 100, and are SOOC. The light is positioned 5' from the background, which is a typical placement for the space I have to work with.

The top row is an AD400 Pro with a standard 7" Bowens mount reflector and various grids, with the exception of the first shot which uses the 4" reflector included with the strobe. The bottom row is a TT600 speedlight with a Rogue Flash Grid with various inserts, which is what I used before switching to bigger monolights. All shots were metered to f/8 on the first shot. I definitely appreciate the increased maximum power and faster recycle times of the bigger light, but the speedlight solution has its benefits.

Some observations:

• The 4" reflector that is included with the AD400 Pro has a wider spread than a standard Bowens mount 7" reflector. You can see in the first 2 shots that the first one has wider coverage, while the second one is more concentrated, but brighter.
• Having a modeling light makes it incredibly easy to position the grid spot, whereas a speedlight requires a lot of trial and error to get it right.
• The quality of light from the AD400 Pro definitely looks nicer to me, which is the same as in previous tests. I am guessing this is from the speed light's fresnel head that adds a little bit of texture, although this disappears pretty quickly with any textured background or larger aperture (or more distance) that results in the background being out of focus to any degree.
• The speedlight solution with Rogue Flash Grid creates a spot that is much more round and pleasing. I don't know how noticeable this will be in a real world scenario, but I was unpleasantly surprised to see the shape of the spot coming from the 7" Bowens reflector and grids, which seems less round and more diamond like. Does anyone have thoughts on why this would be, or if it actually matters?

20200119-DSC_6653a by adamhiram, on Flickr

 

[JBPhotog]

Just some observations and a whack of experience with grids on 7" reflectors.
- was the AD400 level, and I mean actually placing a level on the head? if so then . . . .
- make sure your grids are inserted in the reflector to the same amount all the way around the rim of the reflector, any askew insertion will point the grid in an off centre direction, see example. Some grids don't fit well into the reflector, check that too.
- If you rotate the reflector so it locks into the head at a different location as per the three Bowens tabs, doe the issue persist?

 

[adamhiram]

Just some observations and a whack of experience with grids on 7" reflectors.
- was the AD400 level, and I mean actually placing a level on the head? if so then . . . .
- make sure your grids are inserted in the reflector to the same amount all the way around the rim of the reflector, any askew insertion will point the grid in an off centre direction, see example. Some grids don't fit well into the reflector, check that too.
- If you rotate the reflector so it locks into the head at a different location as per the three Bowens tabs, doe the issue persist?

Yes, the strobe was level, although I would think any angle would just make the grid spot elongated in that direction but still be round. The grids seem to fit well in the reflector and are inserted all the way and evenly all around. I tried rotating the reflector to see if that made a difference and got some interesting results - if I rotate just the reflector (no grid) the light pattern was basically the same, but rotating the grid in the reflector (or rotating both together) made a significant difference. Additional details to follow.