Upgrading to Godox/Flashpoint AD400 Strobes

[JBPhotog2]

Should the bottoms of all 3 feet align with each other when the Matthews stand is folded up?

Yes, they should stack under each other when you fold them up.

 

[adamhiram]

@adamhiram I used to think it would be nice if you lived closer so we could collaborate, now I'm not so sure. Having some distance between you and your luck might be a good thing!!

I have thought the same thing about collaborating if we were closer, not so much about the 2nd part! I honestly think it's just a combination of cost cutting to compete on price, as well as being more particular about my gear than most. To be honest most of the damaged/defective items I mentioned were perfectly usable, just not in perfect condition out of the box.

 

[adamhiram]

Can you check the level of each leg bend where the threaded centre post goes through?

Yes, they should stack under each other when you fold them up.

The top ends of each section (on the left side) appear parallel to each other, but it kind of seems like the 3 feet should be in a straight line for the stand to be level when it unfolds. To get the center post vertical, the long leg needs 1/2" shim and the middle leg needs 3/4" shim. I almost wonder if they just put the wrong feet on. Regardless, the replacement should be here in 1-2 days.


20200114-DSC_6627a by adamhiram, on Flickr

 

[adamhiram]

Following up on open issues from prior posts.

Matthews Back Light Stand
I received a replacement unit today and it has the same issue with the center post not being perfectly vertical. I have a feeling this is neither damaged nor defective, but is more of a design flaw. Unlike typical light stands with 3 equal legs keeping the stand vertical, this design has a single bolt going through the base. It would seem that any play whatsoever in any of the parts it goes through would result in the socket being off-level, and therefor the center post not being perfectly vertical. As one of the reviews on B&H said, it's still a decent product, but I expected better from Matthews. I'm curious if the Manfrotto version has this same issue, since it has basically the same design. Impact also makes one that appears to be a Manfrotto clone, but for about half the price.

Extension head for Xplor400/AD400
I received the Bowens adapter for the extension head and it is built well and works as advertised. However as mentioned previously, I find it bizarre that I would need this and absurd that it is not included, and misleading that this is not mentioned anywhere. Other commenters have suggested that perhaps you're supposed to use the one supplied with the Xplor 400, but who's going to bring an allen wrench to remove and replace 8 screws to move the adapter whenever they want to put it on a boom? Just be warned if you pick one of these up that you'll need the Bowens adapter (or whatever mount you use), as well as a super clamp or other method of attaching the Xplor400 to the base of the stand, which is also not included.

 

[adamhiram]

Matthews Back Light Stand

Additional update - contacted Matthews again, who said this is not normal and is providing a factory-direct warranty replacement. Hopefully third time's the charm, although 2 RMAs in 3 days for a light stand is pretty crazy.

 

[Derrel]

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

 

[Braineack]

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

the light head attaches, but they did not provide the sling to hang the battery/unit pack on a stand from. And even that really only works on a boom.

 

[adamhiram]

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.

 

[Derrel]

Not good on the seller's part... not including a bag they probably pay $1 for...oh well. Spend $50 and pay double....seems about right.

Show one thing, but sell customers less...not cool.

 

[JBPhotog2]

Looking at your sample, I think Matthews need to bend it a bit more at the first bend after the centre post.

Here's my very old Manfrotto ART: 003 and Matthews post. The feet on the Manfrotto touch which makes it look a bit off but once unfolded the post is straight vertically.

 

[adamhiram]

Looking at your sample, I think Matthews need to bend it a bit more at the first bend after the centre post.
Here's my very old Manfrotto ART: 003 and Matthews post. The feet on the Manfrotto touch which makes it look a bit off but once unfolded the post is straight vertically.

Hey, isn't that the same Manfrotto stand you recommended the Matthews over in another post? If it was a cheap item that wasn't worth shipping back I'd be happy to do some DIY repairs - I had to do that with a cheap nano clamp I bought last year. For $70, they can get it right the first time. If all else fails, that Manfrotto one still looks pretty good.

 

[JBPhotog2]

Looking at your sample, I think Matthews need to bend it a bit more at the first bend after the centre post.
Here's my very old Manfrotto ART: 003 and Matthews post. The feet on the Manfrotto touch which makes it look a bit off but once unfolded the post is straight vertically.

Hey, isn't that the same Manfrotto stand you recommended the Matthews over in another post? If it was a cheap item that wasn't worth shipping back I'd be happy to do some DIY repairs - I had to do that with a cheap nano clamp I bought last year. For $70, they can get it right the first time. If all else fails, that Manfrotto one still looks pretty good.

LOL. Manfrotto base, Matthews pole extension. When I bought mine Matthews didn’t offer the base, that was 30 + years ago. The Manfrotto pole extension is not great, only two sections and no where nearly as tall that’s why I suggested the Matthews. Check to be sure you can buy the Matthews pole extension by itself.

 

[adamhiram]

The Manfrotto pole extension is not great, only two sections and no where nearly as tall

The Matthews base feels heavy and solid and probably doesn't differ much from the Manfrotto one. The pole extension it came with feels pretty cheap though. It has a maximum height of 41" despite being advertised as 52", is made of thin aluminum, has plastic clasps, and has the spigots riveted on both ends. The bottom spigot also seem to be made of a softer metal than other ones I have, as there are visible gouges in it just from tightening the base clasp.

 

[JBPhotog2]

Ugh! I am very sorry to hear this about the Matthews pole and quite surprised their quality isn’t what it used to be. As you can see from my photo, there is no plastic, it is heavy duty, the lower spigot is removable and fully extended with the lower spigot it is 51” long. If one added a few inches elevation from the base stand then it is @53” total height.

I guess I need to revise my recommendations and double check the items now available more closely.

 

[JBPhotog2]

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