Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 300 of 570
  1. #251
    fc
    fc is online now
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    24,789
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulRivers View Post
    Or stop by Home Depot!
    Yes, brilliant!!

    It seems like I'm getting a few lights well over 3000 lumens. Don't ask me why

    fc

  2. #252
    fc
    fc is online now
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    24,789
    Can someone explain to me the relationship between candlepower and lumens? Is there a translation formula?

    fc

  3. #253
    Got a suspension fork
    Reputation: randyharris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,432
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    Can someone explain to me the relationship between candlepower and lumens? Is there a translation formula?

    fc
    according to Wolfram, "cp (candlepowers) and lm (lumens) are not compatible" linky

    probably similar to how watts and kWh are not compatible.
    ONE SHOX, ONE GEAR, LOTS of FUN! www.TrailFu.com My Rides

  4. #254
    Got a suspension fork
    Reputation: randyharris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,432
    Quote Originally Posted by randyharris View Post
    according to Wolfram, "cp (candlepowers) and lm (lumens) are not compatible" linky

    probably similar to how watts and kWh are not compatible.
    from the site: Lumens, Footcandles, Candlepower, Measuring Light Output

    Candlepower is a rating of light output at the source, using English measurements.
    Foot-candles are a measurement of light at an illuminated object.
    Lumens are a metric equivalent to foot-candles in that they are measured at an object you want to illuminate.
    Divide the number of lumens you have produced, or are capable of producing, by 12.57 and you get the candlepower equivalent of that light source.
    ONE SHOX, ONE GEAR, LOTS of FUN! www.TrailFu.com My Rides

  5. #255
    fc
    fc is online now
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    24,789
    The main page is up.
    2012 Bike Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review

    It will be updated daily!!

  6. #256
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,461
    Francios, is that the old Dinotte 1200L before the driver upgrade? Just asking as your measurements of just 88 lux is far short of the 105 the XML3 measured. Randyharris was pretty thorough in his review and claimed that the new version was brighter than the XML3 and his photo's showed that as well? I'm a bit surprised on that outcome.

  7. #257
    fc
    fc is online now
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    24,789
    Quote Originally Posted by indebt View Post
    Francios, is that the old Dinotte 1200L before the driver upgrade? Just asking as your measurements of just 88 lux is far short of the 105 the XML3 measured. Randyharris was pretty thorough in his review and claimed that the new version was brighter than the XML3 and his photo's showed that as well? I'm a bit surprised on that outcome.
    Yes, both these lights are the latest from Dinotte and received last week. We are still investigating as well. More shooting tonight Integrating Sphere on Friday.

    The 1200L is on par with other 1200 lumen lights. The XML-3 seems to be putting out about 1400 lumens.

    Treat these numbers as preliminary. Oct. 31 is the final deadline for all the photos and data.

    Here's a good page with historical data too:
    Bike Lights Shootout Light Meter Measurements | Mountain Bike Review

    fc

  8. #258
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,461
    Thats a lot of light from a quality company for just $250. Cheers!!!

  9. #259
    RTM
    RTM is offline
    #1 Latex Salesman
    Reputation: RTM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,827
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    The main page is up.
    2012 Bike Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review

    It will be updated daily!!
    sadly, this is a big day for me. I'm such a nerd.

  10. #260
    apocalypse MEOW!
    Reputation: a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    31
    So far, it looks like the cost / lumen battle is going to NiteRider.
    ... and so is the grams/lumen rating. That thing is a tank.
    The NiteRider mount is relatively secure but is slightly confusing at first as to how it releases.

    Result: In adjusting the direction of the beam mid-commute, I dropped my payload all over the asphalt.

    Damage? Nope. The NiteRider takes a licking and keeps on ticking.. It IS a tank, no doubt about it.

  11. #261
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,110
    It's FAR heavier than those it competes with. For example, the Lupine Betty at about 2600 lumens weighs just about half of what the Niterider does - 812g vs 450g. That's a big difference, nearly a pound.

    J.

  12. #262
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,110
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    Yes, both these lights are the latest from Dinotte and received last week. We are still investigating as well. More shooting tonight Integrating Sphere on Friday.

    The 1200L is on par with other 1200 lumen lights. The XML-3 seems to be putting out about 1400 lumens.

    Treat these numbers as preliminary. Oct. 31 is the final deadline for all the photos and data.

    Here's a good page with historical data too:
    Bike Lights Shootout Light Meter Measurements | Mountain Bike Review

    fc
    Francois - you might want to check the numbers on the Dinotte 1200L (unless it's the old 1200L) and the Dinotte XML-3. Dinotte says the 1200L is brighter than the XML-3 and should be similar to 1500 lumen lights. Instead, your numbers say the opposite.

    J.

  13. #263
    apocalypse MEOW!
    Reputation: a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    31
    John, We've crossed wires. I'm talking about the NiteRider MiNewt 600 Cordless. It's 188 grams.

  14. #264
    fc
    fc is online now
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    24,789
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    Francois - you might want to check the numbers on the Dinotte 1200L (unless it's the old 1200L) and the Dinotte XML-3. Dinotte says the 1200L is brighter than the XML-3 and should be similar to 1500 lumen lights. Instead, your numbers say the opposite.

    J.
    Yes, I've talked to Rob at Dinotte about this. I'm finding that the XML-3 is brighter. The 1200L is wider for sure but the XML-3 is brighter and has farther throw.

    It is possible that the Dinotte 1200L is not getting measured properly by my lux meter setup since the beam is so wide and spilling on to my walls. I'll know for sure after Friday after a true lab session.

    I am finding that any light using the Cree XML are devastatingly bright. The light manufacturers don't even fully know how bright their XML lights are so they are interested in my results.

    These are my two photos from tonight. There is an orange card at 100 feet and a green card at 200 feet on the left of the trail.

    photo 1: Dinotte 1200L
    photo 2: Dinotte XML-3
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout.-img_2116.jpg  

    2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout.-img_2117.jpg  


  15. #265
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    8

    IMHO NR Pro 3000 wins over the Lupine Betty 2600

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    It's FAR heavier than those it competes with. For example, the Lupine Betty at about 2600 lumens weighs just about half of what the Niterider does - 812g vs 450g. That's a big difference, nearly a pound.

    J.
    Lupine website says the Betty 2600 is 460 grams (1.01lbs) and has a 7.5 amp hour Li-Ion battery. Cost $930

    Niterider website says Pro 3000 is 812 grams (1.79lbs) and has a 11.6 amp hour Li-Ion battery.
    Cost $700.

    The Niterider Pro 3000 battery has 4.1 amp hours more capacity than the Betty. That is a lot more battery capacity for 3/4 pound more in weight.

    I'm not sure if the website info is accurate or if the weights include mounts or not but that is what is posted.


    I'd prefer to get a higher capacity battery and brighter light and at $230 cheaper....... 3 reasons to get the NR Pro 3000 over the lighter weight Betty 2600

  16. #266
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    8
    The Betty puts out 2600 lm for 2 hours @ 370g (Smart Core Battery)
    the Niderider puts out 3000 lm for 1,5 hours @ 812 g.

    Right, barely a difference here.

  17. #267
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    14
    Sorry for my ignorance, I just stumbled across this thread for the first time. Will this information and results turn into a spreadsheet or database so we can pinpoint the best light for specific requirements/categories? I looked at the 2012 Bike Lights Shootout page and this test is fantastic and appears to be very thorough!

  18. #268
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    19
    Francois - I saw main page.
    I am looking forward to see other reviews which are pending currently.
    By the way, why is Philips SafeRide's claimed lumen so high 400 lumen?
    I bought it from Germany and it is announced as 270 lumen by Manufacturer(PHILIPS).
    On the web forum in Germany, someone measured it's real Lumen by an integral sphere and it was measured as 291 lumen, I remember.

    The USA version is announced as 400 lumen?

  19. #269
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    625
    What happened to the CygoLite lights? Did they back out last minute? It would be nice if they included their Expillion 400 cordless style along with the Turbo 740 as they seem like solid choices for the price.

  20. #270
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by djembe975 View Post
    What happened to the CygoLite lights? Did they back out last minute? It would be nice if they included their Expillion 400 cordless style along with the Turbo 740 as they seem like solid choices for the price.
    Yeah! The >$200 field has fierce competition going for it. I'm hoping Fc will include real runtimes not just whats on the package.

    Fc already said that the Surfas 500 isnt quite as bright as the Niterider Minewt 600 or the Light and motion Urban 500.

    I think were going to have to wait for the beam patterns on the under $200 lights.

    I'm really curious how the Dinotte XML-1 will hold up against the flashlight lights. As I thought I read somewhere that some of Dinotte lights are upgradeable later in their lifespan. (or am I miss-remembering that?)

    Too bad about the expillion 400. Oh well!
    Last edited by blueyin; 10-13-2011 at 01:36 PM.

  21. #271
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    I have a better location for trail shots!!

    Check here daily for updates on shootout:
    Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review


    1) philips saferide
    I was looking at this, and I realized - it seems like this should be pointed up a bit more. I have a Cyo (similar because it also uses a shaped beam) and the ideal place to point it is for the top of the beam to hit at about an average persons waist level, but the beam appears to be pointed further down. The reason I noticed is it seemed like the light should light up further down the trail.

    Just my thoughts.

  22. #272
    apocalypse MEOW!
    Reputation: a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    31
    Paul, there was a debate over exactly this earlier in the thread, with photos from Francois' back yard. It appears that if you tilt the Philips beam further up, it leaves a darkened gap nearer to the source (just ahead of the bike). That means you'd lose track of obstacles in the trail/road surface. Seen here, when tilted down instead, it also does a weak job of defining the trench at the left side of the image.

    It appears users will have a challenge adjusting the beam to hit the sweet spot. On the other hand, with a static image you're not factoring in the usual handlebar wobble. I'm sure you'd get at least intermittent glimpses of obstacles -- immediately ahead, or off on the periphery like the trench.

    But are you going to see the low-hanging tree limbs overhead? That's the most important question, and why I'm wary of shaped beams. I've been glad for the spread of my own light without a shaped beam (a MiNewt 600) as it's shown me a few low-hanging bushes I might have ridden into.

  23. #273
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    There was a debate earlier in the thread, I just think that in my experience the light head ended up to far down, I think it's meant to be pointed up somewhat further, even if that does leave a larger dark gap in front of the bike. I mean these are just my thoughts, but recently I've been tuning the position of my Lumotec Cyo another shaped beam light and that has been the best light position - for commuting. I just think if it was pointed a little bit more up it will light up further down the trail in this pic.

    I certainly don't expect Francois to go back and reshoot it or anything though.

    As Francois said in his review, I don't think that a shaped beam light by itself would be good for mountain biking. It could be good in combination with a headlamp that would illuminate stuff like low hanging branches though (as Francois mentioned).

  24. #274
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    14
    Look at this: h t t p : / /photozou.jp/photo/show/214524/83193309 (please remove the spaces in the URL - I am not allowed to post URLs because I don't have sufficient cred on this website). It gives a more complete view of the beam. The dark spot is not really all that dark. The beam starts out bright, gets a little dark and then the main part gets really bright. Like any asymmetrical light it is sensitive to adjustment. I find that is best to adjust on a relatively flat road while riding the bike (the rider's weight does affect the overall angle!). I start off by pointing it a bit down and then tilting it up slowly until I achieve maximum throw.

    Wouldn't it be great if were self leveling like BMW lights, heheh. Just kidding, that would add too much complexity, weight and cost

    Quote Originally Posted by a.k.a. View Post
    Paul, there was a debate over exactly this earlier in the thread, with photos from Francois' back yard. It appears that if you tilt the Philips beam further up, it leaves a darkened gap nearer to the source (just ahead of the bike). That means you'd lose track of obstacles in the trail/road surface. Seen here, when tilted down instead, it also does a weak job of defining the trench at the left side of the image.

    It appears users will have a challenge adjusting the beam to hit the sweet spot. On the other hand, with a static image you're not factoring in the usual handlebar wobble. I'm sure you'd get at least intermittent glimpses of obstacles -- immediately ahead, or off on the periphery like the trench.

    But are you going to see the low-hanging tree limbs overhead? That's the most important question, and why I'm wary of shaped beams. I've been glad for the spread of my own light without a shaped beam (a MiNewt 600) as it's shown me a few low-hanging bushes I might have ridden into.

  25. #275
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by NiteBiker View Post
    Look at this: h t t p : / /photozou.jp/photo/show/214524/83193309 (please remove the spaces in the URL - I am not allowed to post URLs because I don't have sufficient cred on this website). It gives a more complete view of the beam. The dark spot is not really all that dark. The beam starts out bright, gets a little dark and then the main part gets really bright. Like any asymmetrical light it is sensitive to adjustment. I find that is best to adjust on a relatively flat road while riding the bike (the rider's weight does affect the overall angle!). I start off by pointing it a bit down and then tilting it up slowly until I achieve maximum throw.

    Wouldn't it be great if were self leveling like BMW lights, heheh. Just kidding, that would add too much complexity, weight and cost
    Yeah - that's what I was trying to say. :-) Put the top of the cutoff right around a persons waist level.

  26. #276
    fc
    fc is online now
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    24,789
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulRivers View Post
    There was a debate earlier in the thread, I just think that in my experience the light head ended up to far down, I think it's meant to be pointed up somewhat further, even if that does leave a larger dark gap in front of the bike. I mean these are just my thoughts, but recently I've been tuning the position of my Lumotec Cyo another shaped beam light and that has been the best light position - for commuting. I just think if it was pointed a little bit more up it will light up further down the trail in this pic.

    I certainly don't expect Francois to go back and reshoot it or anything though.

    As Francois said in his review, I don't think that a shaped beam light by itself would be good for mountain biking. It could be good in combination with a headlamp that would illuminate stuff like low hanging branches though (as Francois mentioned).
    Correct. On the commuter, lower-powered lights, I'm aiming them lower on the trail photos. The reason is their throw is not that far and the light just gets lost.

    I'm aiming them at the orange sheet 100 feet on the left of the trail. There is another green sheet on the 200 foot mark.

    I just got this light called the Cateye Econom Force. It is very similar to the Saferide as it has a very controlled beam pattern. It is square!!

    Here's the latest photos:
    Cateye Econom Force
    Philips Saferide

    fc
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout.-img_2110.jpg  

    2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout.-img_2133.jpg  


  27. #277
    fc
    fc is online now
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    24,789
    Quote Originally Posted by djembe975 View Post
    What happened to the CygoLite lights? Did they back out last minute? It would be nice if they included their Expillion 400 cordless style along with the Turbo 740 as they seem like solid choices for the price.
    They are pending. They are sending the Expilion 350 and a TridenX 750..

    There a bunch more lights coming too. I just got Hope and Tiny Sun Lights.

    fc

  28. #278
    fc
    fc is online now
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    24,789
    Quote Originally Posted by g8trtim View Post
    Sorry for my ignorance, I just stumbled across this thread for the first time. Will this information and results turn into a spreadsheet or database so we can pinpoint the best light for specific requirements/categories? I looked at the 2012 Bike Lights Shootout page and this test is fantastic and appears to be very thorough!
    Yes, I will release the spreadsheet to this group. You guys always make nice graphs and calculations for me.

    Also, proofread my stuff for errors. It's much appreciated.

    fc

  29. #279
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    They are pending. They are sending the Expilion 350 and a TridenX 750..

    There a bunch more lights coming too. I just got Hope and Tiny Sun Lights.

    fc
    Try to get them to send you at least the 400 instead and the Turbo 740.

  30. #280
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2
    Finally! The new light shoutout. Was waiting a couple weeks for this. Thanks.


    Oh and one thing: Philips is actually an old Dutch electronics company (from 1891). They started as a light company later on made all kinds of electronics Came up with some innovations, for instance the Compact Disc.

  31. #281
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    190
    I dont get why everyone is worried about the cutoff for commuting lights. I ran 2 niterider minewt 600 on highs on street commutes. I got a small strip of 3M black tape($2 industrial version from home depot not the cheap 0.99 ones) and placed it over the top part of the light to cut off the spill and not blind drivers. Because the tape can handle high temps there was no melting. The tape did not block the spot light just the small amount of spill that blinds on coming traffic.

  32. #282
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pethelman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by anekin007 View Post
    I dont get why everyone is worried about the cutoff for commuting lights. I ran 2 niterider minewt 600 on highs on street commutes. I got a small strip of 3M black tape($2 industrial version from home depot not the cheap 0.99 ones) and placed it over the top part of the light to cut off the spill and not blind drivers. Because the tape can handle high temps there was no melting. The tape did not block the spot light just the small amount of spill that blinds on coming traffic.
    I'm with you... sort of. With judicious power management and aiming of a non-shaped beam, you can easily ride in traffic at night with plenty of light on the road to see your way without blinding on-coming traffic. If I happen to "stick out" a bit more than the typical car headlight, I'm totally OK with that. Anything that draws attention without being dangerous is a good thing in my opinion.

    The "tape over the top half" trick only really works if you're blocking the direct line of sight to the emitter itself. So you probably need to block just a little more than the top half. Even better than just the tape would be a small mirror, or even smooth aluminum foil. This would have the effect of reflecting back a good portion of the light, and if the light is using a parabolic reflector, it would be re-directed out the bottom half, essentially what the Philips is doing, only with a much bigger reflector with a compound shape. But then again, considering the output lost doing this, you might be just as well off to cut the light's total power output (if possible) and re-aiming for slightly less throw. Just IMO.

  33. #283
    apocalypse MEOW!
    Reputation: a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    31
    NiteBiker, that's a very useful photo of the Philips' spread. Apparently the dim foreground isn't a concern, as you've suggested. Bodes well for overhead illumination, but I'm still wary, from a safety standpoint. Nothing against Philips. Anyone conscientious and patient enough to put out a dynamo light gets big props.

    I think I just have a dark screen.

    Wonder how to get the photos to reveal more of the beam's dynamic range, as in the photo NiteBiker found.

  34. #284
    fc
    fc is online now
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    24,789
    The videos show up here first:

    MtbrVideos's Channel - YouTube

  35. #285
    apocalypse MEOW!
    Reputation: a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    31
    Francois,

    For future reference, apparently there's a setting in the Nikon D7000 called Active D-Lighting (ADL). This underexposes when the highlights will be blown out, and it's on by default.

    If you're looking for a way to show the details of a light beam that may be too underexposed (like the periphery of the Philips SafeRide beam), you'd want to do the following:

    1) Turn ADL off.
    2) Set Contrast to Neutral or Low.
    3) Shoot the first / brightest lamp with manual exposure, overexposing it to some extent.
    4) Use the same settings for the rest of the lamps. They'll expose less and less terrain the lower the lux you're reading for them, but it might be a little bit easier to see what's being illuminated around the dimly lit edges.

    If I get any other advice, I'll re-edit this particular reply of this thread, so it's not scattered.

    I have no interest in seeing you re-shoot, just some insights for next year. Hope this is helpful.

  36. #286
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,110
    Quote Originally Posted by a.k.a. View Post
    Francois,

    For future reference, apparently there's a setting in the Nikon D7000 called Active D-Lighting (ADL). This underexposes when the highlights will be blown out, and it's on by default.

    If you're looking for a way to show the details of a light beam that may be too underexposed (like the periphery of the Philips SafeRide beam), you'd want to do the following:

    1) Turn ADL off.
    2) Set Contrast to Neutral or Low.
    3) Shoot the first / brightest lamp with manual exposure, overexposing it to some extent.
    4) Use the same settings for the rest of the lamps. They'll expose less and less terrain the lower the lux you're reading for them, but it might be a little bit easier to see what's being illuminated around the dimly lit edges.

    If I get any other advice, I'll re-edit this particular reply of this thread, so it's not scattered.

    I have no interest in seeing you re-shoot, just some insights for next year. Hope this is helpful.
    I believe he uses a fixed set of exposure settings so that there is some basis for comparison between pictures.

    Besides that, digital photography will not accurately portray the differences from high to low light levels and therefore the true character of the beam. A digital camera can see about 5-6 f/stops of light (light doublings) and your eye sees 20-21 f/stops of light - many times more resolution from light to dark.

    J.

  37. #287
    fc
    fc is online now
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    24,789
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    I believe he uses a fixed set of exposure settings so that there is some basis for comparison between pictures.

    Besides that, digital photography will not accurately portray the differences from high to low light levels and therefore the true character of the beam. A digital camera can see about 5-6 f/stops of light (light doublings) and your eye sees 20-21 f/stops of light - many times more resolution from light to dark.

    J.
    Correct. I don't want any post-processing. I may try shooting with another camera and in raw formats.

    fc

  38. #288
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,110
    Raw probably won't make much difference. Best thing would be one of the very newest DSLRs with the highest sensitivity ISO. It's just that the human eye is so much more sensitive and we are talking about seriously bright lights here.

    J.

  39. #289
    apocalypse MEOW!
    Reputation: a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    31
    By the way, John, the D7000 currently has the highest dynamic-range sensor going in the 35mm format DSLR world -- coming in at 14 f-stops, according to DxOMark It is equipped with the same sensor as Nikon's top-of-the-line D9000. The only thing it ain't got is a full-frame 35mm sensor, like the D3 series.

    No need to hunt for a better camera, Francois. You have THE sweetest camera of the DSLR world.

  40. #290
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,110
    Right. But it still doesn't have the dynamic range to properly show a beam. You get an idea of shape of the hot spot but the light fall off from hot to edge of the beam won't be representative of the actual beam. The hot spot is pretty easy to see and to determine how well it works, but the fall off from the center (spill) is a huge deal for night riding and that's what you miss with digital photography.

    AND those measurements of the performance of the camera are typically not even close to what you can get in real use. So, it comes back down to a tiny fraction of what the human eye can see very quickly and we're right back to the point that the beam shots beyond about 600 lumens are really not all that accurate and are misleading.

    j.

  41. #291
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    202
    Are there any sources for the Phillips lights with US plugs? I like this for the part of my commute that has heavy bike traffic.

  42. #292
    RTM
    RTM is offline
    #1 Latex Salesman
    Reputation: RTM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,827
    deleted...carry on!

  43. #293
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mikeyonthemadone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by lou2uanme View Post
    Lupine website says the Betty 2600 is 460 grams (1.01lbs) and has a 7.5 amp hour Li-Ion battery. Cost $930

    Niterider website says Pro 3000 is 812 grams (1.79lbs) and has a 11.6 amp hour Li-Ion battery.
    Cost $700.

    The Niterider Pro 3000 battery has 4.1 amp hours more capacity than the Betty. That is a lot more battery capacity for 3/4 pound more in weight.

    I'm not sure if the website info is accurate or if the weights include mounts or not but that is what is posted.


    I'd prefer to get a higher capacity battery and brighter light and at $230 cheaper....... 3 reasons to get the NR Pro 3000 over the lighter weight Betty 2600
    Until you look at the build quality of a Lupine. (And I have been with Niterider for 15 years when they were starting out with NiCad batteries.) Get what you like and need, but imho there is NO comparison in overall quality between NR and Lupine, the latter beats them in every manner.


    Mikey

  44. #294
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    445
    Hey FC

    The Serfas true 500 looks like a nice product but I was wondering what you thought of the helmet mount as that's what I would use it for. I like the idea that I can replace the battery on the trail and 18650 are cheap so I could carry several.

    Thx

    MB

  45. #295
    apocalypse MEOW!
    Reputation: a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    31
    Maximus,

    What, didn't you re-read all 6 pages of this thread in toto? : )

    See this reply. It has the links and pricing for the Philips. Let us know if you get one.
    2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout.

  46. #296
    fc
    fc is online now
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    24,789
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyonthemadone View Post
    Until you look at the build quality of a Lupine. (And I have been with Niterider for 15 years when they were starting out with NiCad batteries.) Get what you like and need, but imho there is NO comparison in overall quality between NR and Lupine, the latter beats them in every manner.


    Mikey

    Lupine has these new hardcase batteries with a fuel guage. They are impressive. This one is 11.2 amp and powers the Betty at high for 3 hours 20 min.

    Here's the Niterider 3000 system weight for comparison.

    fc
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout.-img_2228.jpg  

    2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout.-img_2229.jpg  

    2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout.-img_2230.jpg  


  47. #297
    fc
    fc is online now
    mtbr founder Administrator
    Reputation: fc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1996
    Posts
    24,789
    Quote Originally Posted by mb323323 View Post
    Hey FC

    The Serfas true 500 looks like a nice product but I was wondering what you thought of the helmet mount as that's what I would use it for. I like the idea that I can replace the battery on the trail and 18650 are cheap so I could carry several.

    Thx

    MB
    The helmet mount looks good. Good plastics and the light can be aimed up and down without moving mount.

    fc
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout.-img_2232.jpg  


  48. #298
    RTM
    RTM is offline
    #1 Latex Salesman
    Reputation: RTM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,827
    Quote Originally Posted by francois View Post
    Also, proofread my stuff for errors. It's much appreciated.

    fc
    On this page http://reviews.mtbr.com/2012-bike-lights-shootout the Dinotte 400L should be $209.

  49. #299
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post
    Besides that, digital photography will not accurately portray the differences from high to low light levels and therefore the true character of the beam. A digital camera can see about 5-6 f/stops of light (light doublings) and your eye sees 20-21 f/stops of light - many times more resolution from light to dark.

    J.
    That's called "dynamic range", and all digital cameras are not the same when it comes to it. A modern dslr is better than a modern compact, but they do make improvements in the amount of dynamic range a camera can see. Currently Nikon d5100 / d7000 / Sony a55 are the best for dynamic range in the "dslr you can remotely afford" category (ie under $2500), but I believe they are more like 8 stops per dpreview -
    Nikon D5100 Review: 14. Dynamic Range: Digital Photography Review

    Though the pics from above appear to all be taken with a Canon g9 compact, right Francois?

  50. #300
    mtbr member
    Reputation: spankone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    390
    wow is a lupine piko realy only 30 dolars more than the exposure diablo. here in the uk the piko is twice the price

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Lights shootout 2011
    By fc in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12-08-2010, 11:55 AM
  2. Lights shootout 2010 edition thread on Lights and Night Riding
    By odtexas in forum Lights DIY - Do It Yourself
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-20-2009, 05:17 AM
  3. Mtbr Lights Shootout Update
    By fc in forum Lights and Night Riding
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 02-22-2009, 07:26 PM
  4. Lights shootout comments
    By fc in forum Lights DIY - Do It Yourself
    Replies: 277
    Last Post: 12-08-2008, 07:39 AM
  5. mtbr Shine-Off lights shootout is here.
    By fc in forum Lights DIY - Do It Yourself
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 01-26-2004, 09:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •