Paul C. Buff, Inc. Technical Forum

I certainly didn't see anything on mine that looked suspect, but your comment made me curious.

The combination of Einstein + CC is truly remarkable, and the "system" is a delight to use. You and your team have certainly raised the bar.

I do notice that the metal plate on the Einstein (where the latch fingers protrude) is loose, allowing modifiers (i.e. softbox) to wiggle a little after being attached. Conversely, the plates on the AB & WL lights are tight, and attached modifiers feel very secure. I have no idea why the Einsteins were designed this way, but it seems like anything that wiggles would eventually come loose or be subject to fatigue failure. Then again, I haven't opened one up to see the internal design.

I am aware of the loose fit of the front plate assembly. It fits in an ample slot in the housing, which is a bit wide for the front plate. It should not be a big concern and shouldn't change with time, or cause any problems or weakness. It will take a mold revision to the housing mold, which we will do on the next housing production run.

In the mean time perhaps a dab or two of construction caulk on assembly could take up the slack yet remain pliable enough such that the assembly could still be pulled apart later if necessary...

Caulk or maybe a very thin piece of dense foam that will take up the slack. I know in the short term it does not impact performance, but over time it could wear quicker. It would be nice to get some instruction on how to insert something to get rid of it. It's like that squeak in your car that doesn't detract from the performance, just the aesthetic.

Wear is not a concern here - it's pure aesthetics and won't change over time.

If any of the independent reviews have mentioned this issue BEFORE Paul had brought it up, it'd be great to know who the reviewers are and bookmark. As I would see that as a sign of attention to detail, professionalism and integrity. All things essential to a good reviewer.

Not sure what you mean by "independent review". AFAIK I'm the first to raise this as a potential issue, and I am definitely independent....not connected to PCB other than being a customer. Luap says the loose plate won't become a problem, and IMHO there's no reason not to take him at his word. However, it's still worthwhile to check it occasionally to minimize the likelihood of a $200 softbox falling on a $6,000 camera....or someone's head :o

PCB's customer service has an excellent reputation, and I'm guessing they would take care of this for early adopters, even if it only becomes a problem after the warranty expires.

The little bit of play in the accessory mount would be no stronger if it were eliminated. Hey, put a $180 sports reflector on a $900 RX600 and you'll see more looseness . . . and they have been making these for years. Then stand back and look at the horrid flash pattern with a dark hole in the center and a full f stop less power than Einstein and Retro Reflector.

We should be able to agree that accessories fit tighter on AB's and WL's than they do on the early Einsteins. This can be attributed (at least partially) to the loose plate, but could it also be a function of the springs, which seem to be stiffer on the AB/WL's than on the Einsteins? And don't get me wrong, because I'm only implying that the spring tension is different, not that it's insufficient. Similar thing happened when the spring on my garage door broke, and the limp replacement produced no more than half as much tension as the original; the manufacturer said it's fine, but I can't help wondering if it's gonna fall on my head one of these days. Most of us don't know how the plate and latching mechanism is physically secured inside the Einstein case, so our only point of reference is the movement that we see and feel on the plate and/or attached accessories. If I had never owned an AB or WL, I probably wouldn't have noticed. But I do own both, so it's hard not to notice both the play and the spring tension. You have the advantage of having seen (and/or designed?) the innards, and you've categorically stated that everything is secure and not subject to coming loose or breaking over time. That ought to be good enough, so perhaps it's time to stick a fork in this topic.

The spring tension was reduced from WL to make it easier to operate. And the fingers have almost twice the depth of grip I designed this cam action and can guarantee you cannot squeeze the fingers closed - even with a vise, when they are in the out (clamped) position. This is a function of the physics of the cam action, so spring tension has nothing to do with accessory holding power. One could not retract the gripping fingers even with no spring at all. The cam action is akin to trying to pull against a screw and expecting it to spiral out of the nut.

The AB mechanism is not cam activated and requires much stronger springs to hold it in the griping position.