FX1000 and additional lighting...

Rob Morse · July 7th, 2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garry Moore

I dont feel bad about the Sony 10/20w for the money....

You can get by with the light in a 4:3 environment. In widescreen, it just doesn't cut it for me. If it works for you, then it's a bargain. For me, I would rather spend the extra money and have a more professional product that enhances my productions. Someone else might want to spend the extra money and get a Zylight or other high dollar items on the market.
If something works for you and your customers are happy with the quality of your finished product, that's all that matters. I'm not selling the product, I'm just throwing it out there for anyone who is interested.

Taky Cheung · July 7th, 2009, 11:02 AM

Actually the Comer 900 light is a cheaper alternative. It's smaller and lighter. the light output is also significantly better than the Canon VL-10, LP Micro, and SWIT/Varisoom light too.

You can check out these clips

YouTube - 6 On-Camera Video Lights Shootout - Test #2 Medium Size Room

YouTube - Comer CM-LBPS900 LED Light

Jeff Harper · July 7th, 2009, 01:30 PM

Well Taky, I'm looking forward to receiving my Comer 900.

To all, I switched to the 900 strictly for weight reasons, but am confident the light will work fine even if not as strong as the 1800.

Thanks for the excellent customer service Taky, you're the best!

Stelios Christofides · July 7th, 2009, 02:18 PM

Jeff, Do you think that you will see a big difference between the Sony 10/20 (800 lux, $90) and the Comer 900 (900 lux,$280)?

Stelios

Jeff Harper · July 7th, 2009, 02:23 PM

I do. I'll actually set up the light next to the sony and take photographs with my Canon 40d and we'll see exactly. I could be wrong, but I expect much better results with the Comer based on Taky's videos.

I'll keep you posted.

Rob Morse · July 7th, 2009, 03:31 PM

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.

Taky Cheung · July 7th, 2009, 03:34 PM

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

Jeff Harper · July 7th, 2009, 04:27 PM

Yes, the video is pretty thorough.

Stelios Christofides · July 8th, 2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Morse

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

Taky Cheung · July 8th, 2009, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stelios Christofides

... 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.../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.

Jeff Harper · July 8th, 2009, 02:26 PM

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 Morse · July 8th, 2009, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stelios Christofides

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.

Taky Cheung · July 8th, 2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Morse

... 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.

Rob Morse · July 8th, 2009, 07:50 PM

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.

Rob Morse · July 8th, 2009, 07:52 PM

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

July 7th, 2009, 11:02 AM	#47
Taky Cheung Inner Circle Join Date: May 2007 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 2,114	Actually the Comer 900 light is a cheaper alternative. It's smaller and lighter. the light output is also significantly better than the Canon VL-10, LP Micro, and SWIT/Varisoom light too. You can check out these clips YouTube - 6 On-Camera Video Lights Shootout - Test #2 Medium Size Room YouTube - Comer CM-LBPS900 LED Light __________________ LA Color Pros Blog RODE Authorized Reseller . Comer LED Camera Lights . TakyBox HTML5 Menu Generator

July 7th, 2009, 02:18 PM	#49
Stelios Christofides Trustee Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Nicosia, CYPRUS Posts: 1,080	Jeff, Do you think that you will see a big difference between the Sony 10/20 (800 lux, $90) and the Comer 900 (900 lux,$280)? Stelios __________________ My Blog: http://steliosc.blogspot.com "I hope for nothing, I fear nothing, I am free" Nikos Kazantzakis

July 7th, 2009, 03:34 PM	#52
Taky Cheung Inner Circle Join Date: May 2007 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 2,114	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 __________________ LA Color Pros Blog RODE Authorized Reseller . Comer LED Camera Lights . TakyBox HTML5 Menu Generator

July 7th, 2009, 01:30 PM	#48
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Well Taky, I'm looking forward to receiving my Comer 900. To all, I switched to the 900 strictly for weight reasons, but am confident the light will work fine even if not as strong as the 1800. Thanks for the excellent customer service Taky, you're the best!

July 7th, 2009, 02:23 PM	#50
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	I do. I'll actually set up the light next to the sony and take photographs with my Canon 40d and we'll see exactly. I could be wrong, but I expect much better results with the Comer based on Taky's videos. I'll keep you posted.

July 7th, 2009, 03:31 PM	#51
Rob Morse Major Player Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 427	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.

July 7th, 2009, 04:27 PM	#53
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	Yes, the video is pretty thorough.

July 8th, 2009, 02:26 PM	#56
Jeff Harper Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 8,425	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.

July 8th, 2009, 07:50 PM	#59
Rob Morse Major Player Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 427	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.

July 8th, 2009, 07:52 PM	#60
Rob Morse Major Player Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 427	Just to keep everything as accurate as possible, I would give a +/- of 9 lux.