Originally Posted by
Burton
Different cameras use different sensors. Thing is - sensors in cameras have simply replaced the film that used to be in older style cameras and there were lots of different films produced by lots of different companies even then. They all used the same sensitivity references (ISO ratings) and the main differences were in color rendition, graininess, or B&W vs color. Some specilized films recorded only IR light or X-rays. Nothing much has changed. Now its just being done digitally.
According to the review you posted in 2008 (asuming its not a typo): [TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]
[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #F6F6F4"]"I tried the camera settings used in MTBR's light shootout (6-second exposure, ISO 100, aperture 4.0, daylight color balance) but they come out WAY brighter than what you'd see with your naked eyes, so I once again reduced the exposure time enough to be realistic."
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Six seconds is a seriously loooooooong exposure! I'm not surprised it wasn't representative of what you were looking at. At 4 seconds I was getting overexposure to the point that large portions of the photo were completely whited out. But thats simply an exposure issue caused by too much light and is directly ISO related. Personally I think 1 second is a better choice and 1/2 second might be even better. But in light reviews - that would really show what a really poor light output most lights have.
I don't have time to dredge for their old light comparison that was current at that time, but I'm pretty sure those were the settings they were using then. As you know, and has been discussed already in this thread, lights have gotten so much more powerful since 2008 that camera settings that would help pick between a Light & Motion Vega and a DiNotte 200 are going to be useless when portraying a NiteRider Pro3000 or a Betty. Take a few photos with the same settings and different digicams and I think you'll find that there are limits to their comparability.
In the big picture (haha), with the human eye as adaptable to variations in brightness as it is, beam pattern can trump brightness after a certain point. Easy example, my old DiNotte 600L versus my ~270-lumen Cyo. The DiNotte put out twice the light, but in such a flood beam that the area right in front of the bike was the brightest. The eyes adapt for that, and then I can't see what's 3 seconds ahead at highway speed. The Cyo has half the light, but lays it down pretty evenly... I can cruise a highway at 22mph and dodge rocks and debris on the shoulder with a little time to react. So I think people can get a little too caught up in the brightness comparisions, when it's only part of the real-world performance question. My general rule of thumb is that flood beams are great for mountain biking and showing up in heavy city traffic, while center-weighted beams are great for road.
Myself, when shooting photos with manual settings, I prefer the lower noise and extended depth-of-field of ISO50 @ f8.0. I'll need a tripod either way, so I just increase exposure time to achieve a realistic result.
6 seconds is ridiculous
Depends on the ISO and f-stop you pick.