When Phottix is already a hot shoe holders while (cold shoe), the - overlooking the comparable Walimex Universal Flash Shoe Holder - a value of approx. 5 EUR has.
Both Neiger are (with the exception of 3 heads of adjusting the Phottix and 2 at Manfrotto) made of metal and have a robust and high quality. The Manfrotto rd. 1.7cm shorter than the Phottix (located at the bottom, so do not schirmaufnehmende part of Panhead). But the Manfrotto weighs 380g approx. 60g more and is due to the greater adjustment - especially in the frame lock -. Something bulky (with a comparable screw position about 2 cm wide). The major adjustment to make the operation a little more comfortable, I would not be regarded as mitentscheidendes criterion. Since you will be using a screen Eiger anyway only with a tripod, playing small differences in weight and dimensions, in view of the weight and the dimensions of a tripod ultimately hardly more a crucial role.
In the tilt hinge Phottix are small teeth, so that the joint can latch. Thus, the Phottix in the joint is in principle more stable than the Manfrotto having no such teeth. The Manfrotto but also acts as strong enough so that the tooth probably only have a real advantage in practice, when the locking screw is not properly tightened and / or in an inclined position heavier things as, for example only in the tilt position in fixed screw tightened a 109 cm screen and a dedicated flash be attached thereto. Total respect. The hinge structure but of course beneficial to the Phottix.
If the Neiger is primarily used for attachment of a screen, a key point is the design of the mounting for the screen and the resulting light guide.
The Phottix has a bore at right angles to receive the screen. At the head of the screw, with which the screen is fixed in the hole, there is an elongated U-shaped metal part that wraps when tightening the screw on the screen shaft and so spreads the pressure over a larger area of the stem. The screw of the Manfrotto without this U-part pushes on a smaller area of the shaft. That should - especially in a not so hard screen shaft - cause the Manfrotto screw in strong pinch more time leaves its mark on the screen shaft, perhaps this can be missed even a dent / notch. The mechanical mounting of the screen is thus solved the Phottix better. However, one reviewer has complained here on 24/07/12, which is the set screw too short for its screens.
At Manfrotto is the hole for the screen not at right angles, but at a slight angle. This means that the flash light can be significantly better give in the center of the screen. I did this once with the Walimex Pro 2-in-1 reflector / light umbrella (109 cm diameter, shaft length to the inner peak around 72cm.) Tested. This is something difficult to describe without sketch, but I'll try:
The shaft I is flush mounted in the borehole (ie so that the shaft does not protrude behind). The oblique hole during the Manfrotto umbrella shaft rises in the side view in the direction of the screen slightly, while Phottix it forms with the top of the Panhead a right angle. Now I have (this in rectangular default position) is held at the top of the system flash head a wooden pole towards screen center to measure the screen how far the top of the flash head is above the screen center (ie where the light coming from the top of the flash head light excluding a scattering (!) would meet on the screen). I then measured with the wooden pole at the bottom of the flash head the same.
Result: The rectangular hole in Phottix meets the (here just theoretically nondispersive imputed) light course so far from the screen center removed, as it corresponds to the distance of Blitzkopfober- or bottom to the screen shaft (umbrella shaft and wooden pole're in my test setup parallel). With me were the 18 cm and 14 cm. If you still have a radio receiver between screen Eiger and lightning, the distance from the screen center will again corr. Greater.
At Manfrotto contrast screen shaft and wooden rod running through the oblique bore toward (they would cut theoretically just behind the screen). This meets the (unscattered imputed) light here on only 7 cm or 3 cm from the screen center.
BUT:
When Phottix can the spigot on which the hot shoe is mounted, horizontally screw it to the head attached. The hot shoe thus shows then from the perspective of the Panhead not upwards, but at right angles towards screen center. Thus, a dedicated flash in the extended position can almost hang up on the screen shaft, whereby the light even a little closer to the screen center hits as the Manfrotto. One could in this way perhaps even a second flash in the extended position to the first fix (eg with Velcro tape) to enhance the firepower of the screen.
Again BUT:
This solution of Phottix only works well when the flash body is not so thick that he gets in the way to the screen shaft. Phottix would have had to make the distance between the hole for the screen Eiger and for horizontal mounting of the larger spigots. With a Nikon SB 900, for example, it is necessary that the body side is connected to the switches and the display in the direction of the umbrella shaft. Otherwise, the screen shaft would not come on the flash past (see my two photos). However, then read the display and operate the buttons is difficult because these lines are directed ground. So you have to pretty dislocate. Further, the middle part of the display and the central OK switch is covered by the screen shaft. Which positions (in another review here v. 23:02:13 was of a 45 degree turn the speech) are practicable depends iW on where the required switch on the flash body are and how these are then covered by the umbrella shaft. If SB 900 the broadest possible rotation would still the zoom button or hide the button for manual flash trigger and sometimes the on-off remote master switch on the other side (and of course continues to be part of the display). If you can do all the necessary settings on the flash TTL on the camera or a radio transmitter that everything is ok, because you then yes (except for the on-off remote master switch) usually not so on the switch and the Display is dependent on the flash. Speaking of radio: Depending on the design of the receiver, which is mounted between hotshoe flash and could possibly also the receivers are the umbrella shaft in the way. With a flash bracket such as the walimex Hot Shoe Extension Bar 15 cm (there are certainly even smaller) could increase the distance between the flash and umbrella body Eiger. However, then not only the price advantage of the Phottix would be lost, you would also flash back acc. To continue away from the screen center. And if the whole thing would be so stable is questionable. It should also be that in a stretched position the flash further projects as the Phottix solution of flash head in the shade and thus reduces the scattering circle of light on the screen.
Conclusion for me:
The build quality of the two opponents, I see as equivalent.
The functionality of the tilt limiter is solved when Phottix better. But I think the strength of the lock when Manfrotto at carefully tightened screw is definitely far enough unless a comparatively heavy equipment acts on the slope (the lever law says hello).
The locking of the umbrella shaft is also better at Phottix.
For me, however, is ultimately the opportunity crucial to get the flash as well as possible in the center of the screen and a wide spread in it. Here is my central theme is touched, namely to obtain the best possible lighting.
Diesbzgl. solving Phottix seems not thought through due to the closely spaced holes for horizontal mounting of the flash shoe and for the screen shaft. The practicality of this solution will depend on the dimensions and the design of each flash unit and also the way how / which the flash is controlled.
At Manfrotto I get the light well and (without flash extension) with a relatively larger scattering circle in the center of the screen. And I've used regardless of the flash unit always comfortable access to the controls of the flash.
In this respect I opt for the installation of a screen for the Manfrotto.
If the central placement of the flash light in a screen would not be the central issue, but I would be - decide not least value for aspects of the Phottix. That would for example be the case when a softbox would fastened on the Neiger, in the light of the flash would be determined by the fixed placement of the flash in the softbox.
Respect. the rating I give two Neigern 4 stars, because neither of them is perfect for all application areas.
One more thing for the price: is Yes, the Manfrotto (even without hotshoe) currently stands at Amazon rd. 12 EUR more expensive than the Phottix. I will drink it in the next few months a total of 6 cups of cappuccino less. (;-) Seriously: It already is for the hobby photographing but usually comparatively a lot of money. And those who go toward Strobist Studio or provide for the additional possibilities of lighting and lighting out more. In view of this and must mE be decisive in this price range, what you really need and want. The possibly EUR 12 over there should ultimately not be the decisive criterion.
