Originally Posted by
rm -rf
They probably used this exposure when the lights had a lot less output. But a photo that's mostly dark wouldn't make a good review photo.
What exposure would be reasonable? After playing around with my camera, I think about 2 seconds at F4 and 100 ISO is about right.
I used the photos to compare different beam spreads and intensity. I don't know how far away the playset is, anyway.
For instance, the Dinotte 200L (200 lumens) I have this light, and the photo is probably overexposed compared to real life. But it's still a good bike light for low speeds, with a nice beam width with no sharp cutoff.
Compare it to the Dinotte XML-3
If these photos were just comparing differences in beam spread - they"d be a lot more acceptable. Clearly the XML-3 has a much broader coverage. But putting markers at different distances and presenting the light as having this kind of 'coverage' is more than a little misleading. How are you supposed to know how much light you need to buy based on extended exposures. Its actually possible to do a really long extended exposure with NO lighting and still produce a perfectly clear photo. Would that mean I need NO lights?
But I'm glad to hear you're happy with what you have yourself. Not everyone needs a torch, but everyone needs something they're comfortable with.