How much better is the strobe than the video light for photos

[Landau]

I've pretty much decided on getting a DC2000 but am wondering which package. I'll do both still photos and video. How much advantage is the strobe? Will I really be able to tell the difference?

Is the main advantage stopping the action?

 

[tbone1004]

strobes are typically higher output for lower cost and will obviously have better battery life vs a video light. If lumen is the same, then the outcome will be the same. Stopping the action is done by the camera, not the light. If you do video, then the lights will have no problem doing double duty, you just have a larger more expensive package for the same light output since they have to burn the whole time.

Strobe vs Video Light for Still Photography

 

[tursiops]

Stopping the action is done by the camera, not the light.

No, usually the strobe output is quite short compared to the camera's shutter speed, so the action-stopping is done by the strobe. So, for moving subjects, the strobe is much preferable. For things not moving, a video light may be sufficient....but is still not usually as bright as the strobe.

The UW Light Dude article you cite is about off-camera lighting in caves....rather a specialized situation. Even then, the article waffles.

 

[Pillpusher]

It's a matter of preference, but you can't adjust the output nearly as accurately with the video light, whereas the strobes have the 1-10 dial. Also, some creatures spook much more easily with a light constantly in their face. Unless you take a lot of video, strobes all the way, IMO.

 

[kelemvor]

No, usually the strobe output is quite short compared to the camera's shutter speed, so the action-stopping is done by the strobe. So, for moving subjects, the strobe is much preferable. For things not moving, a video light may be sufficient....but is still not usually as bright as the strobe.

I'm probably splitting hairs here but that's not entirely accurate either. "Stop action" happens when your shutter speed is sufficiently fast that no movement of your subject can be detected. There must be enough light for the camera sensor to make an image in whatever the amount of time the shutter was open.

More light can be a solution. So can better glass (lenses) and to a lesser degree a better sensor.

I think we all agree that for still photography, a strobe is far superior. I've never seen a strobe rated in lumens so I can't make an accurate direct comparison. Flashes are generally rated in "guide numbers".

There's a post over on another site where they attempt to mathematically equate guide numbers to lumens. I happen to own the (land, not diving) strobe they're talking about in the post. I think it cost me around $400 and they claim it equates to 1.4 million lumens. Try taking the formula they came up with and plug in the values for the strobe you're considering. Assuming their formula is even remotely accurate, you'll see that the strobe is far more powerful than the video light.

 

[tursiops]

I'm probably splitting hairs here but that's not entirely accurate either. "Stop action" happens when your shutter speed is sufficiently fast that no movement of your subject can be detected. There must be enough light for the camera sensor to make an image in whatever the amount of time the shutter was open.

Try taking a picture in a dark room. The shutter can be open for many seconds.....but the nearly instantaneous light from the strobe is what takes the picture...and stops any action/movement. And take a look at the shutter speed most cameras have for a flash sync; 1/250s is not uncommon. That is not fast enough to stop any real movement, but the 1/1000s or even faster flash of the strobe is what actually stops the motion.

 

[tbone1004]

No, usually the strobe output is quite short compared to the camera's shutter speed, so the action-stopping is done by the strobe. So, for moving subjects, the strobe is much preferable. For things not moving, a video light may be sufficient....but is still not usually as bright as the strobe.

The UW Light Dude article you cite is about off-camera lighting in caves....rather a specialized situation. Even then, the article waffles.

the UWLD article flat out states that the strobe is better for dedicated still photography. That said, if the OP is going to be doing both video and stills, a video light should suffice

 

[Skeptic14]

It can depend on the ambient light too, with a slow shutter speed in fairly high ambient light the strobe itself may not freeze motion sufficiently.

Another advantage of the strobes for photography over video lights aside from stopping motion is that faster shutter speeds help improve how sharp the images are but with video lights you will have to slow your shutter speed down to get proper exposure because of less light so your images might not be as sharp.

 

[bvanant]

There is (or was) an article on the Optical Ocean website that I wrote about the issue. The conclusions are that with cameras that have good high ISO capability you can get good shots with just a video light (it has to be bright). I would be wary of trying this too much with the DC 2000 since it doesn't have the best high ISO performance. Of course you get noise at high ISO but sometimes this is OK for shooting small things. For wide angle you will be using God's light anyway. As for the rest of the ideas of course strobes do most of the work for stopping action IF the background light is not too bright i.e. at depth. To get a sense of this take your photo (f:16 1/250) without strobes. If it is black then the strobe is doing all of the action stopping. If you see much of an image then that movement will show up in the picture as well even though the strobe is used (google dragging the shutter).

Bill

 

[Storker]

Stopping the action is done by the camera, not the light.

Um, no. Not if you're shooting with a strobe/flash.

EDIT: ninja'ed by @tursiops . That should teach me to read the whole thread before replying.