I’m not used to posting any pictures so hopefully this helps. I haven’t had time to really mess with the Comer 1800 Light but on initial try out, it clearly is superior to the other 2 lights. I shot at aperture 3.4, shutter 60, manual WB. I shot at 5 feet and 10 feet. Giving the Sony 10/20 the benefit of the doubt, it was turned sideways. I’m so busy right now but hopefully this is enough to help anyone interested. I’ll shoot with it this weekend and will give more feedback.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/members/r...0-20-light.jpg

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/members/r...wit-5-feet.jpg

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/members/r...omer-5feet.jpg

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/members/r...it-10-feet.jpg

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/members/r...er-10-feet.jpg

The order of quality was Comer 1800, Swit 2010 and Sony 10/20 clearly last.

The Comer is the clear champ, quite a light.

Thank you Rob, nice work.

Thanks Jeff, I hope it helps. One of the things I didn't mention was that the room was completely dark. Also, all the lights were at full intensity. The Comer 1800 was actually too bright at 5', even with the filter, but I didn't want to change the aperture on the camera or dim the light in order the keep everything the same. From what I've seen so far, this is going to be an awesome light.

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

For $90 its certainly OK. The Sima SL 20 is somewhat close and costs only $35 and weighs almost nothing, and is self charging. It does have a slight cast to it though. The Comer from what we're seeing in photos and video samples kills the others.

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.

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

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!

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

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.

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

Yes, the video is pretty thorough.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!