Hi all; This is a longish post In regards to judging a light by its coverage is like comparing apples to apples, like Granny Smiths to Delicious. They're all apples but have different tastes. I have found that not one light does it all from one situation to another. I have three head lights to choose from from a blinky on my helmet, a Cateye OptiCube, a AA fed, street-light accessory, and a MiNewt, damn-the-oncoming-traffic-full-pothole-ahead kind of light. I frequently bike from my South-side place to Downtown, I know the route and have names for all the potholes. Therefore, I can live without the MiNewt which I have had to do since it doesn't hold the charge for very many days. So, I usually rely on the Cateye. I do have several small Planet Bike lights, but the main light PB lights keep falling off the handlebar bracket. It's not the light that bothered me, but the lightness of being as see parts and batteries strewn along the bike path. Never-the-less, the question is judging the output. All of the respondents to this thread have mentioned variables such as spread, lenses, reflectors batteries and what not and that's what makes it difficult. As photographer, judging one flash from another has equally been as problematic as far as big units go because they list watt second outputs which could well be Klingon for most people because each model has its own physical characteristics. So, it comes down to guide numbers and Isaac Newton's Inverse (Perverse?) Square Law. It means that light intensity is inversely proportional to the distance from the source - meaning you can obviously see the light gets predictably dimmer the father the light is projected. So, you ask, what does mean for me, Mr Smarty Pants? It means I can cheat. I went to school for this and, dang it, I get my money's worth. I can take my camera to a bike store with a piece of cardboard - any cardboard will do and shine the bike light on the cardboard. I take a light meter reading. Keeping everything the same, I take another light, shine that on the same cardboard at the same distance, and make note of any difference in camera setting. I know full well that at least 80% of the people don't know the difference between an f-stop and a door stop. And with high tech/low info compact cameras these days, my suggestion doesn't help a lot of you. But I can make a plea to our friends at Planet Bike, Cateye, MiNewt and Dinotte to establish a system of calibrated guide numbers like those used on small camera flashes to compare the intensity of light on a gray surface at 10 feet or 100 feet. that will null out many of the variables between lenses, reflectors, and power sources (except maybe hub generators). OK, Ill be quiet for a while. thanks for reading. Darryl PS I was a newspaper photographer, initially I thought this thread was directed at me, But alas, I saw the light. --- On Tue, 11/17/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Bikies] Intelligent news coverage? To: [email protected] Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 2:31 PM In case anyone out there is listening (Planet Bike, maybe?) what I'd love to see on product labels and in reviews of bike lights is how many lumens they produce on full charge. Knowing the wattage doesn't help much because reflectors or the lack thereof inside the light housing can increase/decrease the brightness. And I've never been in a bike shop that let me turn off all the store lights just so I could see how bright a given light is in the dark conditions in which I would actually use it. Lightbulb manufacturers list lumens, why not bike light manufacturers? Just a thought. Kathryn Kingsbury www.kathrynkingsbury.com On LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/kathrynkingsbury --- On Tue, 11/17/09, Tom Held <[email protected]> wrote: From: Tom Held <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Bikies] Intelligent news coverage? To: [email protected], [email protected] Date: Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 2:23 PM Rick did a nice job on that piece, and there's an opportunity to add recommendations and comments here http://tinyurl.com/ylos56n Tom Held -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 2:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Bikies] Intelligent news coverage? Hey kids: I submit this from the point of view of "this isn't the usual news article about bicycles that goes something like this: `isn't this the darndest thing?!? some people actually get to work by riding a bicycle!' . " http://www.jsonline.com/features/health/70199932.html On the bright side Modern bicycle lights enhance safety, but the best are pricey By Rick Barrett of the Journal Sentinel Posted: Nov. 16, 2009 Al _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
