Electronics, Lighting, & Gadgets - Light selection guide.

One type of light that is not listed and may be in interest of many cyclists is 2.4w micro halogen like this (http://www.cateye.com/en/products/viewProduct.php?modelId=24&catId=7&subCatId=2) Cateye HL-500II.

I have seen a few varieties from other company but don't know the difference between them. At least I can tell you from my unit, it is(does)....

* Output is more intense than 1w LED(PlanetBike in this case) 4 times as much(guesstimate).
* Output is more intense than 5w Halogen(very disappointingly, about the same intensity as 1w LED)
* Once piece unit. Important to some cyclists.
* Relatively long burn time with AA NMH batteries(2300mah). 3.5+ hours(by real world test).

Only draw back I can think of maybe the life of the bulb which I haven't test it to burned out yet.

I'll post the photos of intensity comparison against 1w LED if anybody interested.

Please post pictures, it'll be good for comparison.

I was looking at the EL-500 which is a single LED light. Do you think this light would be brighter? It seems to be less expensive so that would be nice. I dont really care about the shorter run time because I'd be using rechargeables.

edit: I'd like to see some comparison shots too :)

Here's a comparison photos between Cateye HL-500II MicroHalogen(2.4w) vs. Planet Bike Super Spot(1w).

Photo 1: Target in full light. Two flashs used.
Photo 2: Light pattern Super Spot.
Photo 3: Light pattern HL-500II. (This can be adjusted to some degree)
Photo 4: Super spot (2", F3.2) exposure.
Photo 5: HL-500II same exposure above.
Photo 6: HL-500II 1 stop under (1", F3.2).
Photo 7: HL-500II 2 stop under (1/2", F3.2).

Distance from light source to the target: 10'.
Dimention of the target : 25"(H) x 23"(V)

Uh, hate to say it, but 10' is a good distance for testing photo lens quality but not for testing lights.

Is it possible to get any worthwhile images from 40 feet away? Can you do a time lapse shot if needed?

Open up the ap and increase exposure and get a shot from about 30-40ft away. That's about 2 seconds of warning at 15-16mph.

It does look a little more intense but it seems like the LED is giving more illumination. In the real world maybe the 2.4 works better.

It is hard to duplicate real world look. For example, like some said, Super Spot looks better in this test. In reality, It hardly illuminates the road enough for a cyclist to see anything. In comparison, Micro Halogen's pattern is narrow but in the real world light moves, so when a object comes into its illumination, you know it's there. You see washed out part(most intense part) of Micro Halogen light and that's the part you use when you are riding in real world. If I have to choose one of two, I'll take Micro Halogen with me.

Take this test as a comparison between two models, and not with the one you have. Human eyes works very differently than a camera. The best and only way to compare two models are not side by side is to use your own eyes.

Now, can I see other people's test?

So I wonder if this would be a good time to point out that I have a light meter.

So I wonder if this would be a good time to point out that I have a light meter.

In a word, no.

Camera is not as good as human eyes but still better than light meter alone. In fact, last 30 years or so, just about all the camera made had a light meter built-in.

In a word, no.

Camera is not as good as human eyes but still better than light meter alone. In fact, last 30 years or so, just about all the camera made had a light meter built-in.


Yeah but my light meter tells you more about the light level than the spot meter in a camera Which will only tell you what it is setting it is choosing given aperature or shutter speed priority.

And where are you getting this information from your human eye?? Oh yeah, the pictures people are taking with thier cameras which have all sorts of different exposure characteristics based upon what?? Oh yeah thier light meters.

While a human eye is more sensitive. You can't look at something and reliably quantify it.

So I was thinking something along the lines of incident light readings at various distances from the light source. Taking readings a few degrees off center would be good for beam spread also. We could also do reflected spot readings off of an 18% grey card from the rider's position and move the card to the same points.

Might be more trouble than it's worth.

So I wonder if this would be a good time to point out that I have a light meter.

I have a light meter too and I tried a few months ago to compare different lights, it was next to useless. It doesn't measure reliably the quantity of light, let alone the quality.

A good way usually is to take a picture of a scene during the day, then one with a reference light, then lock it and take pictures of the other lights.

I have a light meter too and I tried a few months ago to compare different lights, it was next to useless. It doesn't measure reliably the quantity of light, let alone the quality.

A good way usually is to take a picture of a scene during the day, then one with a reference light, then lock it and take pictures of the other lights.


The quality of light certainly cannot be recorded that way. I have to wonder what light meter you were using if it couldn't reliably measure the quantity of light.

Maybe it needs new batteries.

Nah, cause we have a guy here who designs light sensors, he just uses that one to compare readings.

I have a light meter too and I tried a few months ago to compare different lights, it was next to useless. It doesn't measure reliably the quantity of light, let alone the quality.

A good way usually is to take a picture of a scene during the day, then one with a reference light, then lock it and take pictures of the other lights.

Can you explain this a little more? I have quite a few different types of lights. I guess a lot of forum members do. I have a good digital camera too. But I am not sure that I can do anything that is a good comparison. You probably remember the taillight pictures I took outside. That was taken with the camera on auto exposure. I assume auto exposure will just ruin a comparison.

But, what about an object at a certain distance, with a fixed exposure? Is this what you're getting at?

Of course if I compare 6 different lights to each other, you could see a relationship between all of my
lights, but that may have no comparison to another members photos.

edit post: The Lupine comparison photos. http://www.lupine.de/en/lighttest/lighttest.html

I can compare led's to 2.4w 4AA lights, to halogens, to different HIDs etc. But I would like to do something that makes sense when you compare it to another forum member's photos with some kind of common settings or environment etc..I have access to outside places that are dark enough and long enough, maybe some others need to keep it inside like allgoo19 ?

Did you go to the Lupine comparison photos in the dark? They gave some information about camera settings and the distance etc. I was thinking I could try and copy that to start with.

Or something easy for others to duplicate, as much as possible? Maybe there is no accurate way to compare photos from one member to another, just compare lights at one location?

It basically means if you want 100% accurate scientific information, a light meter's good as long as you get the entire scene in there, otherwise, a camera gets you close enough to get a relative feel of the differences between two or more lights if you don't want to measure it absolutely.

It basically means if you want 100% accurate scientific information, a light meter's good as long as you get the entire scene in there, otherwise, a camera gets you close enough to get a relative feel of the differences between two or more lights if you don't want to measure it absolutely.

I'm thinking just a cardboard box on the ground at 25 - 50 -75 feet, or what ever distance away in a dark place. And putting the light on the bike each time to get the height the same. Then just putting the camera on the tripod at about the same height as my eyes if I sit on the bike. That's about it. That's the best you can do if it's going to be done in different locations. If this was repeated by others, it would help a little, not make it accurate, just better. I'm trying to find something that others could repeat. Maybe that's not worth it because of the huge amount of variables.

I thought you meant take one picture with one light and see where the auto exposure takes the camera, then lock it on that exposure and do the other lights?

I wouldnt rely on auto exposure. It depends on how your camera meter is set up (spot, partial, evaluative, etc) but if it sees more of the darkness, you're going to overexpose your light, and if it sees the bright spot of light, you're going to underexpose. I'd probably just manually set the exposure and view the LCD to get the scene as close as possible to what you see with your eyes.

Yeah just lock the exposure or manually set it. All you want to do is get a good idea of how much wider a beam is compared to another one and how much farther it is.
Or if you want an absolute value without comparing one light to another, use a light meter.

I wouldnt rely on auto exposure. It depends on how your camera meter is set up (spot, partial, evaluative, etc) but if it sees more of the darkness, you're going to overexpose your light, and if it sees the bright spot of light, you're going to underexpose. I'd probably just manually set the exposure and view the LCD to get the scene as close as possible to what you see with your eyes.

Good point, I didn't think about what type of meter in the camera. All that can probably be acomplished is a comparison of lights to each other at one location.




Yeah just lock the exposure or manually set it. All you want to do is get a good idea of how much wider a beam is compared to another one and how much farther it is.
Or if you want an absolute value without comparing one light to another, use a light meter.

OK, that's what I thought. I think the photo is actually better info. for a person trying to select a light.

Ok, I realized that my light has a more efficient reflector and apparently, light & motion uses custom halogen bulbs that get 30 lumens/watt. Which means that the 16 watt beam that I normally run gets about 480 lumens, and the 11 watt beam gets 330 lumens, which explains why it gets almost as much light as a HID. And on both beams, I'm running around 800 lumens.
Anyway I updated the chart with slightly more reasonable speeds and added a few things.

I'm not sure this is clear, so I just wanted to point out that the "11" and "16" in MR-11 and MR-16 lamps is not referring to wattage, it's referring to the diameter of the reflector. MR-11 lamps are 11/8" in diameter and MR-16 Lamps are 16/8" in diameter.

You can get almost any wattage of MR-16 Lamp from 5w/12v to 250w/240v.

I'm pretty sure MR stands for metallic reflector, but nowadays everyone makes the reflectors out of dichro glass because it's more efficient.

bk

All these talk and no samples.

Have you thought about posting photos of comparison? Any photos! People will tell you if they like it or not. That would be a beginning of the standardized test. Just post it.

As far as incident metering is concerned, it's a silly idea. Look at Super Spot light pattern. It looks flat and even but it still has about 3 stops difference from center to the edge of the target. Micro Halogen, 5 stops easily and you have to measure every inch of it. Incident metering is not designed for this kind of light but the lights that falls even on the subject like sunlight. Even if you do that tedious job and post the numbers, it's hard for the viewers to translate it in the real world view. Just try it once, people are going to tell you they don't like it and much prefer, photos where you can see where the intensity is high or low without explaining it.

[QUOTE=slvoid][Moderator Note: Since lights are so important in the winter, I'm making this a temporary sticky. Please post your bicycle light comments, suggestions, and questions here. For Home-made bike designs and questions, see Total Geekiness (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=42629).]



Since so many people are starting to get lights for the fall and I was bored, I came up with this.


That'll teach you for permitting yourself to be bored. :D I do have a question, why nothing listed from Nightsun? They are still around and I've got several units that work fine after 10 years or more of use. One or two after some spectacular crashes. Check out their offerings here.

http://www.night-sun.com/htmldocs/civilian.html

how about the planet bike beamer 5? i had emailed them asking how the super spot compared to the cateye el500, and if it was water resistant and they downplayed the superspot in favor of the beamer- "However, I would suggest checking out our new Beamer 5. It is super compact and puts out a ton of light (though I don't know the exact candlepower.)". not like they'd actually give the candlepower to me or anybody else, like for the rest of their models.

and of course the only information google can find on this model is at the interbike product preview page (http://www.interbike.com/ib/interbike/product_preview.jsp):

The new Beamer 5 showcases Planet Bike’s new Extreme LED technology in a compact 5 LED headlight. These blazing new white LEDs, manufactured by the Nichia Corporation of Japan, are 300% brighter than the previous generation.
MSRP: $29.99

how about the planet bike beamer 5? i had emailed them asking how the super spot compared to the cateye el500, and if it was water resistant and they downplayed the superspot in favor of the beamer- "However, I would suggest checking out our new Beamer 5. It is super compact and puts out a ton of light (though I don't know the exact candlepower.)". not like they'd actually give the candlepower to me or anybody else, like for the rest of their models.

and of course the only information google can find on this model is at the interbike product preview page (http://www.interbike.com/ib/interbike/product_preview.jsp):

I searched Beamer5, and only result I came up with was Beamer3. If it's a 5 LED version of Beamer3, and also the price indicates, it'd be close to Cateye EL300.

I don't have experience with EL300 but from some members posts, it's much weaker than 1w EL500. Also other members who have both Palnet Bike Super Spot and Cateye EL500(both are 1w LED), comparing them saying, they are quite similar in the intensity but EL 500 has tighter light pattern.

I just purchased a Lupine Passubio XC from Gretnabikes (only US distributor, I think) they put the 25W bulb from the Lupine Nightmare Pro in it for free. I don't have a camera so I can only tell you how it compares to the system I am replacing, which is a Niterider Digital Evoloution. The Lupine light is brighter in both the full power and the econo power modes the reserve mode is about as bright as the Niterider at full power. The Lupine li-on battery is about the size and weight of two 9V batteries. Altogether about half the weight of the Niterider system (although the Niterider used a NIHM battery). There is no comparing the quality, the Lupine system is in another league. At full power the battery will run an hour and a half (haven't timed it in econo mode) and has a reserve that gives you a few minutes. The Lupine attaches without any mounting bracket, making it easy to switch from one bike to another (I have 4 bikes and purchased three extra Niterider mounts to be able to switch the Niterider from one bike to another). The Niterider cost me $235 (not including the extra mounts) and the Lupine cost me $330, but I had to send the Niterider back (the whole system) to get the "smart" battery replaced (twice) and the third one still went wacky, that meant I went without lights for a month each time and the poor quality of the Niterider connectors sent me into total darkness five times while riding (for no aparent reason) when they came apart. I don't anticipate a repeat of those issues with the Lupine light. You can mix Lupine batteries from one model of light to another and from one year to another, the connectors are the same on all models and all years.

Ok, I realized that my light has a more efficient reflector and apparently, light & motion uses custom halogen bulbs that get 30 lumens/watt. Which means that the 16 watt beam that I normally run gets about 480 lumens, and the 11 watt beam gets 330 lumens, which explains why it gets almost as much light as a HID. And on both beams, I'm running around 800 lumens.

I'm pretty sure that there is nothing special about the L&M bulb, what they are doing is "over-volting," running a stock 6V halogen bulb at 7.2V.

There is an interesting article about watts vs. lumens here:
http://nordicgroup.us/s78/wattslumens.html

For me the most eye-popping thing is that a halogen bulb over-volted by 20%, like the L&M, can give more lumens per watt than a HID. The tradeoff is that bulb life suffers.

Here's another good article:
http://www.myra-simon.com/bike/lights.html

That's what I thought but since I couldn't find their bulbs anywhere, I'm tempted to think they're at least a bit special, plus I found similar bulbs that didn't quite fit and they indeed were designed for 10.8 volts.

Incident metering is not designed for this kind of light but the lights that falls even on the subject like sunlight.As a professional lighting technician, I can affirm that this is incorrect. Incident meters are designed to measure the intensity of light at the point of the sensor, whether your source is broad and diffused or narrowly focussed.

What you really need to judge a headlight's effectiveness (electrical and durability considerations aside) are two pieces of data: beam characteristics (shape, falloff, etc) and intensity. Beam pattern photos at a standard distance and all shot at identical exposures are a good way to judge the former, and an incident lighting meter that gives you readings in footcandles is an excellent way to judge the latter. A good set of data might be to measure the distance from the fixture at which you get 2 footcandles in the brightest part of the beam.

As a professional lighting technician, I can affirm that this is incorrect. Incident meters are designed to measure the intensity of light at the point of the sensor, whether your source is broad and diffused or narrowly focussed.

What you really need to judge a headlight's effectiveness (electrical and durability considerations aside) are two pieces of data: beam characteristics (shape, falloff, etc) and intensity. Beam pattern photos at a standard distance and all shot at identical exposures are a good way to judge the former, and an incident lighting meter that gives you readings in footcandles is an excellent way to judge the latter. A good set of data might be to measure the distance from the fixture at which you get 2 footcandles in the brightest part of the beam.

I am going to disagree that beam photos tell you much of anything useful at all. All it tell you is that some guy at a agreed upon distance with an unknown camera, an unknown sensor/film, and an unknown lense used an aperture / shutter speed that may or may not be in agreement with what everyone else is using took a picture against a wall that is an unknown color. Most of the people taking the pictures may well be using software/camera firmware/scanner firmware that makes it "look nice" with out actually telling them anything.

That tells me nothing other than lights sure are pretty. It is nice to see beam patterns that is certain.

but if I can take a spot reading against a known object (like a grey card) at various parts of the beam it tells me a hell of alot more than a picture some dude took after pointing a light at his wall.

wether it tells anything to anyone else.. perhaps that is a different matter.

If you want I can go back and color correct all of those light pictures and make them look like totally awesome lights. :rolleyes:

I am going to disagree that beam photos tell you much of anything useful at all. All it tell you is that some guy at a agreed upon distance with an unknown camera, an unknown sensor/film, and an unknown lense used an aperture / shutter speed that may or may not be in agreement with what everyone else is using took a picture against a wall that is an unknown color. Most of the people taking the pictures may well be using software/camera firmware/scanner firmware that makes it "look nice" with out actually telling them anything.

That tells me nothing other than lights sure are pretty. It is nice to see beam patterns that is certain.

but if I can take a spot reading against a known object (like a grey card) at various parts of the beam it tells me a hell of alot more than a picture some dude took after pointing a light at his wall.

wether it tells anything to anyone else.. perhaps that is a different matter.

If you want I can go back and color correct all of those light pictures and make them look like totally awesome lights. :rolleyes:

All this talk and no sample.

If you have a better idea, just post your result. It's much easier to be a critic and bashes other people's result than to create something. Are you afraid of bein g criticized, wheezl?

And you too, threephi. I'd like to see your test result if you claim yourself a professional. I'd expect see much better result than mine. I wouldn't even think about bashing someone before I tried something.

Just look at all the posts in this thread, I'm the only one posted the result and nobody else. What a bunch of big mouths and nothing to back it up!!

All this talk and no sample.

If you have a better idea, just post your result. It's much easier to be a critic and bashes other people's result than to create something. Are you afraid of bein g criticized, wheezl?

And you too, threephi. I'd like to see your test result if you claim yourself a professional. I'd expect see much better result than mine. I wouldn't even think about bashing someone before I tried something.

Just look at all the posts in this thread, I'm the only one posted the result and nobody else. What big mouths and nothing to back it up!!

Heh, no I am not afraid of being criticized. If you look back it was you who jumped on me after my offer to use a light meter. I like my light and don't really care to measure it. I was offering the light meter as a service to the folks who might be interested and everyone shot me down. So since I have a job that requires long hours I am not going to waste my time when I could be sleeping or seeing my friends and family. (also I haven't unpacked from moving and have no idea what box it's in :) )

My point wasn't that photos are bad. My point was to defend the concept of using a light meter since you didn't really understand what I was trying to explain. Perhaps I explained poorly.

No one is bashing you and I think that since you felt attacked you ended up disagreeing as a defense mechanism.

Those pics are great and I may have come off sounding harsh.. perhaps that was me getting defensive.

To sum up:
I had the idea to use the light meter, I got shot down. It seems like the project sounded more interesting to me than anyone else. :) I am going to go replace my brake pads now.

I like my light and don't really care to measure it. I was offering the light meter as a service to the folks who might be interested and everyone shot me down. So since I have a job that requires long hours I am not going to waste my time when I could be sleeping or seeing my friends and family. (also I haven't unpacked from moving and have no idea what box it's in :) )

Interpretation.

"I don't have the time I can waste like you do. I have my light meter but I'm too busy, so I suggest you do it."

A few peple made a requset that they want to see my comparison test, so I wasted my time and did the test. I thought I did my part to help other members. I thought many peple would follow and post their result. If you can't compare the lights A, B, C, side by side you can still compare A, B, followed by another member B, C comparison test, so you can come up with some idea what comparison between light A and C.

Guess what? Nobody followed. All I got was the opinion that saying the test was inferior and suggested something else, while they can do their own. Sure, it's much easier when you sit around in the couch, tell the wife to get a beer. get a bag of chips and tell her how bad the beer tastes and suggest something else.

Sure, I have 60 hours a day in my hand just laying around and no work. Is that what you are saying?

Interpretation.

"I don't have the time I can waste like you do. I have my light meter but I'm too busy, so I suggest you do it."

A few peple made a requset that they want to see my comparison test, so I wasted my time and did the test. I thought I did my part to help other members. I thought many peple would follow and post their result. If you can't compare the lights A, B, C, side by side you can still compare A, B, followed by another member B, C comparison test, so you can come up with some idea what comparison between light A and C.

Guess what? Nobody followed. All I got was the opinion that saying the test was inferior and suggested something else, while they can do their own. Sure, it's much easier when you sit around in the couch, tell the wife to get a beer. get a bag of chips and tell her how bad the beer tastes and suggest something else.

Sure, I have 60 hours a day in my hand just laying around and no work. Is that what you are saying?


Wow, you really are stretching here. I do have enough time to waste that I considered using the light meter to test. You'll notice that NO ONE was interested. In light of the fact that NO ONE was interested, I decided not to waste my time.

I was never criticizing the very useful pics you took. I was however criticising your complete lack of undertsanding about what a camera is and what a light meter is. That's all! I know I came off sounding like a jerk. That's because I am a jerk.

I suggested that it would be neat to use a light meter also. You jumped on me so I felt it wise to explain a bit about what I was thinking. In hindsight I'd have to say it didn't work out.

I THINK YOUR PICTURES ARE GREAT.

So stop feeling persecuted already.

I know I came off sounding like a jerk. That's because I am a jerk.


Apology not accepted. Next ride, steven holds you, we beat you down for a good solid 5 minutes with your own light meter.

alright everyone just chill out. I think both methods have their place in "measuring and evaluating light."

Anyway... just wanted to say thanks to allgoo19 for posting up the comparison. I was about to buy the Cateye 1 LED light but saved some money and went for the HL 500 II instead (as suggested) and I've VERY impressed with this light. For only $10 (clear model at nashbar right now) i think it was a steal. I'd highly reccomend this light to anyone who is on a tight budget. My friend just bought a 3 led light and this one blows it away. Thanks for the suggestion!

Apology not accepted. Next ride, steven holds you, we beat you down for a good solid 5 minutes with your own light meter.


:) in that case I am totally not going to figure out what box it is in.

alright everyone just chill out. I think both methods have their place in "measuring and evaluating light."

Anyway... just wanted to say thanks to allgoo19 for posting up the comparison. I was about to buy the Cateye 1 LED light but saved some money and went for the HL 500 II instead (as suggested) and I've VERY impressed with this light. For only $10 (clear model at nashbar right now) i think it was a steal. I'd highly reccomend this light to anyone who is on a tight budget. My friend just bought a 3 led light and this one blows it away. Thanks for the suggestion!

Thank you, nitroroo.

I feel very rewarded.

...went for the HL 500 II instead (as suggested) and I've VERY impressed with this light. For only $10 (clear model at nashbar right now) i think it was a steal. I'd highly reccomend this light to anyone who is on a tight budget. My friend just bought a 3 led light and this one blows it away. Thanks for the suggestion!
I second that.

I'd like to get something a little brawnier, but I can navigate the unlit (dark) greenway paths here up to 10 mph with my Cateye HL500 II (2.4W Halogen), which I've been super happy with for the past two years. I've been using it almost daily and I've never had a problem. I've dropped it several times and gotten it soaking wet once or twice and I'm still on the original bulb.

The Cateye is good for about 3.5 hours, the cheapie for at least 30 hours (much longer on blink). I use the HL500 II as my "to see" light and a super cheap 5-LED thingy as my "to be seen" light, and as a backup. On lit streets, I just need to be seen, so I run the cheapie on blink, and I flip on the Cateye if I need to see in the dark.

Here's a link to my super cheap 4-aaa light on eBay, if anyone's interested: http://cgi.ebay.com/5-LED-BICYCLE-HEAD-LIGHT-WATERPROOF-BIKE-LAMP-TORCH_W0QQitemZ8710792871

And here's the HL500 II at Nashbar:
http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=&subcategory=&brand=&sku=13661&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=

Like I say, brighter lights are on my wishlist, but until I decide I'm ready to fork out the serious $$ (or to embrace my true geek nature), these'll do me.

BTW, allgoo19, I'm in the process of making the handlebar camera mount (using the HL500 II's mounting bracket) as you suggested in this post: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=668079&postcount=9

Are you still using yours?

allgoo, I tried.... :(

I have a digital camera that does not have "exposure lock" that can repeat the last setting used. It has "aperture priority".
You can pick one of two apertures and then move a slider sideways to change the "exposure". It does not tell you much. When the LCD screen is on you can see the "exposure" change as you slide the slider over. You just have to set it and try a photo.

I took 7 or 8 lights out in the driveway, set up a tripod, took a bunch of pictures of each light. I set water bottles at two set distances and measured the distance to a bike against the garage etc. I got the pictures in the computer to see If I had something to post. I also experimented with labeling the pictures.

I finally deleted them all and gave up for the day, they were terrible. ARGH. I have to find a camera setting that will show them all in some kind of fair comparison. The difference between the high and low powered lights is so great that I did not yet find one camera setting that will show them all.

Any camera experts have an idea? I tried auto. I had some ambient lighting, that may have been one problem. I'm going to try the very dark bike path. I also can pick from averaging, center weighted, and spot light metering on my camera. I can change the iso too. I'm open to suggestions.

BTW, allgoo19, I'm in the process of making the handlebar camera mount (using the HL500 II's mounting bracket) as you suggested in this post: http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=668079&postcount=9

Are you still using yours?

No, I didn't make that idea into reality. I was thinking of getting a small digital camera at the time and what I actually got was Olympus C8080 which is pretty chunky and heavy.

I still think the idea would work as long as the weight of the camera is not more than the Micro Halogen light, which you can find plenty of them these day. But in order to use it on your bike, either you have to have very fast camera or anti-shake camera(in a small camera body) to minimize the camera shake.

If you haven't bought the camera, many models of Panasonic (http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/vModelList?storeId=15001&catalogId=13401&catGroupId=24999&cacheProgram=11002&cachePartner=7000000000000005702) P&S camera(with image stabilizer feature) should be considered for reducing the shake.

If your bike has suspension like mountain bike, that would help reduce the vibration too. That of course, if you are planning to take shots on the run.

Because I have never tried it in real world, I don't know how bad the vibration affects the photo.

Because I have never tried it in real world, I don't know how bad the vibration affects the photo.

I have been thinking about the same thing. Wondering if a fat roll of rubber and the image stabilizer would be enough. I'm also not sure if I want to fashion something completely new or rip the head off of one of my crappy tripods and attach that.

allgoo, I tried.... :(


I admire you just for trying.

It's much easier to have a camera with full manual control and full information LCD. It's always better to try something else than keep wishing.

I suppose your camera doesn't have manual exposure control(aperture, shutter speed).

The next best thing you can try is to

* press the shutter button half way while aiming it to something else in the dark and in the about the same distance to the light pattern you are trying to show. That'll lock the exposure and focus, you can't separately lock them. Then keep holding the shutter button, turn your camera toward the light pattern and give it a full press.

* Check the shot you just took. If it is over powering bright, light that "something else" you used to lock the exposure little brighter(but not as bright as the light pattern) then repeat the step above.

If this works, you'll know by the first shot you take. Repeat it in different amount of light, you'll get the hang of it.

Your camera may have the control that you are not aware of. If you can tell me the make and the model of the camera, it's eaiser to find out.

I have been thinking about the same thing. Wondering if a fat roll of rubber and the image stabilizer would be enough. I'm also not sure if I want to fashion something completely new or rip the head off of one of my crappy tripods and attach that.

The first part of your concern is very reasonble. But even if he buys it just for this purpose, he can always use the camera for something else which the camera originally designed for.

To the second part, it maybe wise to try it with old film camera he may never use again. If it can hold the light(Micro Halogen) which is heavier than most compact P&S, it'll hold up under normal vibration. It's not wise to hit the bumpy unpaved road at first try and if you are expecting clean image from that, you are expecting too much anyway.

The first part of your concern is very reasonble. But even if he buys it just for this purpose, he can always use the camera for something else which the camera originally designed for.

To the second part, it maybe wise to try it with old film camera he may never use again. If it can hold the light(Micro Halogen) which is heavier than most compact P&S, it'll hold up under normal vibration. It's not wise to hit the bumpy unpaved road at first try and if you are expecting clean image from that, you are expecting too much anyway.

Oh I actually meant specifically for my little Canon point and shoot. I certainly with him the best of luck with his. :)

I could just use a regular clamp, but they are a bit heavy for the job.

No, I didn't make that idea into reality. I was thinking of getting a small digital camera at the time and what I actually got was Olympus C8080 which is pretty chunky and heavy.

I still think the idea would work as long as the weight of the camera is not more than the Micro Halogen light, which you can find plenty of them these day. But in order to use it on your bike, either you have to have very fast camera or anti-shake camera(in a small camera body) to minimize the camera shake.

If you haven't bought the camera, many models of Panasonic (http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/vModelList?storeId=15001&catalogId=13401&catGroupId=24999&cacheProgram=11002&cachePartner=7000000000000005702) P&S camera(with image stabilizer feature) should be considered for reducing the shake.

If your bike has suspension like mountain bike, that would help reduce the vibration too. That of course, if you are planning to take shots on the run.

Because I have never tried it in real world, I don't know how bad the vibration affects the photo.
I have a Canon A70, which, BTW I DO NOT RECOMMEND FOR ANYONE, unless "anyone" is a real jerk -- in which case buy two or three. The camera has some nice features (full auto AND full manual AND pretty much everthing in between; video with sound), but it's way too delicate for real-world use. Despite careful handling, I had to return it twice for service (which was, to be fair, quick, friendly and effective). It's the stupid way they designed the zoom lens (it gets stuck on its way in or out), and they used the same bad design on all their "powershot" digital cameras. Google "Canon E18" for more info.

Anyway, it still works for now (although the LED screen is dead) and it weighs in at 12.5 oz with batteries, not too much more than the HL500 II light at 7.5 oz. I will check out the Panasonics when it's time for a new camera.

I don't plan to do much "on the run" shooting, but I do think it would be cool to have the camera already out and ready instead of having to dig it out anytime I see something photo-worthy. And it would be nice to be able to use the bike as a tripod.

And, to be honest, I just have a thing for easy-to-make, elegant, simple and practical solutions. :)

I think the Cateye halogen headlight + the cheap LED is a good simple solution to the basic urban lighting problem, and I hope the camera mount works out that way, too. Thanks for the idea!

I admire you just for trying.

It's much easier to have a camera with full manual control and full information LCD. It's always better to try something else than keep wishing.

I suppose your camera doesn't have manual exposure control(aperture, shutter speed).

The next best thing you can try is to

* press the shutter button half way while aiming it to something else in the dark and in the about the same distance to the light pattern you are trying to show. That'll lock the exposure and focus, you can't separately lock them. Then keep holding the shutter button, turn your camera toward the light pattern and give it a full press.

* Check the shot you just took. If it is over powering bright, light that "something else" you used to lock the exposure little brighter(but not as bright as the light pattern) then repeat the step above.

If this works, you'll know by the first shot you take. Repeat it in different amount of light, you'll get the hang of it.

Your camera may have the control that you are not aware of. If you can tell me the make and the model of the camera, it's eaiser to find out.

I am using no flash and a tripod, so I can't hold the camera in my hands very well. I've been using the timer. I can still try it anyway. The problem is so far, what shows the led lights about right just shows the 16w HID as a white screen. What shows the HID about right shows the led as a few pixels of color.

I'll spend some more time on it. I can adjust and make pictures that look "about" like what the eye sees, but if I adjust a little off it's not a good comparison. That's what made me stop trying the other day.

I have an HP photosmart 935.

No, I didn't make that idea into reality. I was thinking of getting a small digital camera at the time and what I actually got was Olympus C8080 which is pretty chunky and heavy.

I still think the idea would work as long as the weight of the camera is not more than the Micro Halogen light, which you can find plenty of them these day. But in order to use it on your bike, either you have to have very fast camera or anti-shake camera(in a small camera body) to minimize the camera shake.

If you haven't bought the camera, many models of Panasonic (http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/vModelList?storeId=15001&catalogId=13401&catGroupId=24999&cacheProgram=11002&cachePartner=7000000000000005702) P&S camera(with image stabilizer feature) should be considered for reducing the shake.

If your bike has suspension like mountain bike, that would help reduce the vibration too. That of course, if you are planning to take shots on the run.

Because I have never tried it in real world, I don't know how bad the vibration affects the photo.

I spent over a year riding summer and winter with a digital camera mounted on my handlebars. I even made a clear rain/snow cover and have some good snow (taken while it was snowing) pictures. After a while you get sick of just the one position point of view. For example, a group shot requires riding ahead and turning the bike around. Also the videos were acceptable on the street, but the microphone did not deal with the wind very well. I finally switched to using a nice camera bag as a holster strapped to the stem. This allows shooting easily at any angle while moving, or not. I have plenty of moving shots of riders behind me. You just blast away and delete later. Since you can invert the image in the computer I shoot upside down under my arm, or over my head etc. It's easy, I don't actually aim with the screen or the viewfinder I just point the lens. It's better than you would think. Much better.

I had to reduce the file size a lot to post these, but these are taken while riding. Front, back, side, whatever, It's better than on the bars.

So, I've read through this wholethread and still have questions :)

I need a light that will allow me to ride our rails to trails for excercise. These are all flat, smooth gravel paths, no auto traffic nearby. I ride an MTB, usually in the 10-13 mph range focusing on keeping the cadence up rather than pushing taller gears for more speed. It appears from the thread the lower level lighting categories will suffice for what I need. Can anyone comment on the following cheapies I'm looking at? I will NOT be doing any high speed or singletrack/descents with this light. I save that for weekends when the sun is out :)

http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=&subcategory=&brand=&sku=15178&storetype=estore&estoreid=479&pagename=

http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=&subcategory=&brand=&sku=9719&storetype=estore&estoreid=479&pagename=