If what Taky said is true, the 900 should be better than my Swit and the Swit is certainly better than the Sony 10/20.

Stelios, you can't keep comparing the lux of the 10/20 to the other lights. It's not comparing apples to apples. I can duct tape a flashlight to the top of my camera and that would probably put out more watts and be cheaper as well.

I used to have the SWIT light. So I compared it side by side with the Canon VL3, VL10, LP Micro, Comer 900 and Comer 1800.

Comer 900 is brighter and wider spread than SWIT. You can watch this video

YouTube - 6 On-Camera Video Lights Shootout - Test #1 Small Room (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3dNuXSNZaA)

Yes, the video is pretty thorough.

Stelios, you can't keep comparing the lux of the 10/20 to the other lights. It's not comparing apples to apples. I can duct tape a flashlight to the top of my camera and that would probably put out more watts and be cheaper as well.

Rob the only measure that you have when comparing video lights, surely is the lux measurement (luminous emittance) and what I am trying to say is that, if I want more luminance in my subjects than the Sony 10/20 (800lux), then a light with 900 lux costing 3 times a much, is it really worth it? I don't think that 100lux is going to make that difference.
Ofcourse I might be wrong.

Jeff when you get the Comer 900 please do a comparison with your Sony 10/20 ( I presume you have one) and post the results.

Stelios

... if I want more luminance in my subjects than the Sony 10/20 (800lux), then a light with 900 lux costing 3 times a much, is it really worth it? I don't think that 100lux is going to make that difference.
Ofcourse I might be wrong.

...Stelios

Are we talking about this Sony HVL-20DW2 light

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-HVL-20DW2-Video-DCRVX2100-HDRFX1/dp/B000063Y73/ref=pd_cp_p_1

In the page, it said the light is 40 lux and 80 lux ONLY. Not 400 lux and 800 lux. It doesn't say the measuring distance too.

So for the Sony light at the strongest dual light mode assumed at 1 meter, the difference is 80 lux for Sony and 900 lux compared to the Comer 900 light.

I look at the spread also, and the Sony has none.

The Comer has a wider dispersion and other features, the Sony offers nothing except a narrow beam of light.

Rob the only measure that you have when comparing video lights, surely is the lux measurement (luminous emittance) and what I am trying to say is that, if I want more luminance in my subjects than the Sony 10/20 (800lux), then a light with 900 lux costing 3 times a much, is it really worth it? I don't think that 100lux is going to make that difference.
Ofcourse I might be wrong.

Jeff when you get the Comer 900 please do a comparison with your Sony 10/20 ( I presume you have one) and post the results.

Stelios

Stelios, as an example, you can have 800 lux which is concentrated as a spot, like the Sony. The other light has 900 lux which is spread out across the entire area, giving you more better overall coverage. If you took a light meter and went off center of the Sony light, the lux would drop drastically. If the Sony does have 800 lux (which that doesn't seem right) it would only be in the center. I'm going to see if I can dig out my light meter and I'll get back to you.

... If the Sony does have 800 lux (which that doesn't seem right) it would only be in the center. .

nah... he misread the info. The sony has 40 lux and 80 lux only. not 800 lux. It also doesn't say 80 lux measured at what distance. Comer spec says it was 900 lux at 1 meter.

Testing is at 5 feet in complete darkness. The Sony (turned sideways for maximum coverage and no diffuser) at its brightest spot is 110 lux. Move a foot from side to side and it drops to approx 65 lux. The Swit was 76 lux (using the diffuser) at its brightest spot and dropped to 58 lux moving it a foot side to side. The Comer was 290 lux (without any filter) and dropped to 258 at 1 foot. Here is the kicker, the Comer still had 167 lux at 3 feet from its brightest spot. With the filter it dropped to about 198 lux and was about 168 lux at a foot and 112 lux at 3 feet. Also, the Sony did not fill in the picture on my LCD. The lighting on the sides was unacceptable. I didn't even bother testing 3 feet away from the brightest point. I did this with my camera, tripod, lights and Greenlee Digital Light Meter. Hope this helps.

Taky, at 1 meter I got 835 Lux.

Just to keep everything as accurate as possible, I would give a +/- of 9 lux.

nah... he misread the info. The sony has 40 lux and 80 lux only. not 800 lux. It also doesn't say 80 lux measured at what distance. Comer spec says it was 900 lux at 1 meter.

Taky
I don't think that I have missed the info, I think that SONY missed the info. Attached is the text taken from their operational manual.

Rob
Thanks though for providing all the measurements. I am not really happy with the Sony light but I want to be sure when I purchase a new one that I won't be disappointment, especially if I have to pay much more than the Sony one.

Stelios

Thanks though for providing all the measurements. I am not really happy with the Sony light but I want to be sure when I purchase a new one that I won't be disappointment, especially if I have to pay much more than the Sony one.

Stelios

That's why I'm posting all this stuff. Since I have all 3 lights I'm trying to give you all the info so you can make the best decision for your needs. It does get costly to keep up with all the new gadgets.

...It does get costly to keep up with all the new gadgets.

You can say that again Rob. The minister of Finance (my wife) keeps telling me that we are in recession now...

Stelios

Stelios, FYI: I'm not getting the comer at this time, so I won't be able to tell you about it.

I placed the order for the Comer with Taky, then promptly spent all of my PayPal money on still photo gear.

Taky wrote me saying he had not recieved my payment two days later, and we both checked with PayPal and there had bee a computer error. Very unusual. I had actually gotten a PayPal receipt. Taky noticed it has a date of December 1969, which was even stranger.

So the short version of this story is I now don't have the money for it, the order didn't go through, so I'll have to wait.

....So the short version of this story is I now don't have the money for it,... so I'll have to wait.

Join the club...lol

Stelios

The good news is I now have some amazing camera lenses I'm using Sunday which I wouldn't have had the money for if the light order went through, so it all worked out, but much differently than if the light purchase had gone through.

message removed

Message removed, apology accepted, sorry for the misunderstanding taky.

Message removed.

Jeff, I beg you read my post again. I didn't accuse you of scamming me. It was what Paypal said. I think and I know they are wrong. That's why I said Paypal has some serious issue. I appreicate your prompt return of my wrong shipment too.

Seriously, I didn't say you scam me. I'm sorry if it comes out that way. For that, I apologised.

Jeff, you are right. I shouldn't have post that message publicly. Although I didn't say you scam me, other might perceive it that way. I'm sorry again and I will remove that message.

Really Taky, your first clue that this was a PayPal error should be the date on the receipt.


I have to say it again, how stupid would someone have to be to to do such a thing?

Jeff - as an independent observer I don't really think Taky was "calling you out" publicly - from what I read in his post it sounded like he didn't believe what Paypal had told him and used the corroberating evidence of the wierd date of the transaction and transaction ID 0 - he then goes on to say that Paypal has some serious issue (probably a computer snafu as noted). Paypal was actually accusing you of a potential scam all becuase they had made the error in the first place - Taky was just repeating that and saying that he doubted it and it was most likely Paypal's error.

I have purchased two lights from Taky and he has been very upfront in our dealings.

Jeff - calm down - I don't really think there is a disagreement here - Paypal was the culprit and you both pointed that out. I have seen instances in other forums where Paypal has messed up the payments but it has always been resolved.

Taky is just in the process of expanding his internet business and he seems to be very sensitive and accomodating to his customer's needs and will bend over backwards to not have any bad publicity.

Peace!!

Taky, I do accept your apology. Please leave it up so that people who read it earlier will understand there was a mistake.

I literally became sick over it and have been awake for hours waiting for PayPal offices to open.

The post was up for hours, however and I cannot imagine what people thought.

Lets move on.

Thank you for clearing it up.

To be clear, in my dealings with Taky he has been upfront and honest and I recommend him highly as a vendor. There was a miscommunication earlier but apparently I misunderstood. It seemed clear to me, but since at least one other person (Barry) has pointed out that I misunderstood than I will accept that and in return I will apologize to Taky as well.

My apologies Taky for misunderstanding your post.

I'm so glad that is over, I was so upset!

Message removed, apology accepted, sorry for the misunderstanding taky.

Ha Ha - as I was composing my message it sounds like you guys got things worked out.

Great!!

Jeff, thank you so much. I am not able to go back to sleep too. *phew* Now I feel better. I should have just fwd you the stupid email from paypal (in private of course) and both of us will just lauged about it.

Barry, thanks for helping me out too.

Well, at least while I couldn't sleep I got a photomontage done, that's one good thing that came out of it!

I'm going to bed, I've got a huge weekend in front of me and I'll try to get a few hours sleep...see you later Taky.

Can we see the photo montage?

Taky I'm not putting it online. It is a photomontage for Sharon (whom I live with) of her trip to Italy.

It was one of those things I'd been putting off. She had her photos on a disc and wanted to share them with her co-workers so I threw a very simple deal together to take to work, so it's not much to see, just boring pictures of Assisi Italy taken with a point and shoot camera.

Thanks for your interest though!

Guys
I really found the lights for my camera...

That's what I'm talking about!

I can duct tape a flashlight to the top of my camera and that would probably put out more watts and be cheaper as well.[/QUOTE]

Thats exactly what I did on an occasion, at a Wedding, my cheap 35W light caught on fire and a D cell Maglite with a clear Walmart bag as a diffuser saved the reception footage.....
Been there done that ! LOL
Garry

Garry, every job is a new adventure. Improvisation is one of the greatest assets you can possess in this field.