# Beamshots comparison of latest novelty in lights!!!!



## msxtr (Dec 10, 2006)

Hi, here the last novelty in light with beamshots

Blackburn sistem X8



















busch & mueller ixon IQ



















Cateye triple shot Pro



















Hope Epic



















Lupine Betty 6



















Sigma Powerled Black Edition



















Topeak Monshine HID enduro



















Greetings - Saludos

msxtr


----------



## Alex SP (Sep 25, 2007)

Cool, nice pics :thumbsup: That Hope Epic seem to have a nice beam, nice flood. And it´s compact too. But the Betty, oh my... What a monster. That´s a ridiculous (in the good sense) ammount of light everywhere. Looks like a car headlight, and the two of them!


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

The Hope and Lupine are very bright. I'm surprised that the Hope has such a wide pattern. I didn't think they had much experience designing lights but that is impressive.

Good job with this, msxtr. I think you were trying to say "latest novelty in lights..." instead of "last novelty in lights..." but your English is quite good.


----------



## Homebrew (Jan 2, 2004)

WOW!!! That is impressive. Nice background. I'll assume that you mounted them all similarly (all bar mounted from the same place), pointed them in the same spot and had the same camera settings?

That Hope looks outstanding with lots of peripheral light. I find it hard to believe that they were able to get that out a two LED system enough to clearly beat out the HID.


----------



## problematiks (Oct 18, 2005)

I actually like the offering from Hope more than the Lupine one.Hope has a nicelly even beam while Lupine has too much brightness in the center for my liking.

Marko


----------



## msxtr (Dec 10, 2006)

Hi,* Flyer* Thanks for the correction 

Explanation, the beamshots don't are mines are of a german magazine :skep: :smilewinkgrin: :devil:

Greetings - Saludos

msxtr


----------



## The Squeaky Wheel (Dec 30, 2003)

1. I'm impressed with the Hope
2. Betty is uber-bright
3. Betty's beam looks narrower than I was expecting

Well done


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I was thinking about this. While the Hope looks great, it probably has a "raw" lumen rating of around 350 or 400. The similar Lumen rating of the Betty with seven LEDs is around 1400 (I realize this is also a "raw" number) and this is evidenced by the incredible throw of the beam. The pictures will not tell us the while story but if the photographer was taking notes, that would really help. 

For example, the close-up peripheral light of the Hope looks slightly wider than the Betty. Was this what the testers thought as well? Did the Betty really have a hotspot in the middle or was it more of a camera lens picking up more reflection than the human eye would? I have seen other pics where the Betty beam shows no reflection at all. 

Are there any notes or explanantions that go with these beams? That would really help.


----------



## Alex SP (Sep 25, 2007)

problematiks said:


> I actually like the offering from Hope more than the Lupine one.Hope has a nicelly even beam while Lupine has too much brightness in the center for my liking.
> 
> Marko


That hot spot becomes a huge blessing once you´re flying down a trail, Marko  Especially when it´s complemented by the awesome spill the Betty seem to provide. You can point up the focus to increase the throw and still have plenty next to the bike to get a good feel for the surroundings. Some say you just can´t outrun Betty´s beam. Super-technical trails might still demand a second helmet light but this must be one balanced light IMHO!


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

That's what I was thinking- that either you had a ton of cash and an obsession with lights or it was a magazine. 

Are there any explanations (in the magazine) of these lights and beam patterns that you can translate in short form?


----------



## msxtr (Dec 10, 2006)

Flyer said:


> That's what I was thinking- that either you had a ton of cash and an obsession with lights or it was a magazine.
> 
> Are there any explanations (in the magazine) of these lights and beam patterns that you can translate in short form?


The magazine are Mountainbike magazin 

Here

Greetings - Saludos

msxtr


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I see no text or description there either. I'll ask crisillo to see if he can find anything. He lives in Germany and may be able to find some information on this test.



msxtr said:


> The magazine are Mountainbike magazin
> 
> Here
> 
> ...


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

Unfortunately these again seem to be those kind of beamshots where you cannot really compare the beams directly - the camera is tilted in different angles for all the lights, for example, and the 1 powerled Sigma seems to be brighter than the Betty... all these are good for is to have a general idea of the beam type - flood or spot.
Hope is only about 300 lumens, because they still use the old 5w leds (this is a case when I have to praise smaller vendors like Dinotte and Lupine who almost instantly update their lights when new technology gets available...).


----------



## msxtr (Dec 10, 2006)

Flyer said:


> I see no text or description there either. I'll ask crisillo to see if he can find anything. He lives in Germany and may be able to find some information on this test.


Hi, sometimes I can buy this magazin here in Spain, if I get buy, I inform to you 

Greetings - Saludos

msxtr


----------



## msxtr (Dec 10, 2006)

radirpok said:


> Unfortunately these again seem to be those kind of beamshots where you cannot really compare the beams directly - the camera is tilted in different angles for all the lights, for example, and the 1 powerled Sigma seems to be brighter than the Betty... all these are good for is to have a general idea of the beam type - flood or spot.
> Hope is only about 300 lumens, because they still use the old 5w leds (this is a case when I have to praise smaller vendors like Dinotte and Lupine who almost instantly update their lights when new technology gets available...).


Yes, I don't understand, why doing the beamshot a professional have this mistakes...

Greetings - Saludos

msxtr


----------



## Homebrew (Jan 2, 2004)

msxtr said:


> Yes, I don't understand, why doing the beamshot a professional have this mistakes...
> 
> Greetings - Saludos
> 
> msxtr


Because it's a bike magazine not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Although I do have to give zeGermans credit for a focus on empirical analysis even if not always perfectly applied science.


----------



## Cino (Oct 31, 2007)

I'm not so sure about the Betty. It has a very powerful beam that punches pretty far, but there doesn't appear to be much light within 4 or 5 meters of the bike. I think maybe the reason for the hot spot is that the testers were trying to illuminate the turf close to the bike with a beam that wants to go far ahead of the bike. At the selected angle, the Betty illuminates the area around 20 meters beautifully - which I think might be the critical distance for a roadie. At 20mph, 20meters gives you about 2 seconds to recognize and respond to a hazard. If aimed higher, the Betty looks like even 40 meters visibility would be good - even better for a roadie. But then you might loose everything within 10 meters. It is nice to have light close to the bike when cars are approaching and you have to look down to avoid being blinded.

I think for less money than the Betty, you could get 2 good lights to fill both needs. That would give you an added advantage of having a backup.

Just my own personal ramblings.


----------



## icycle (Apr 20, 2004)

radirpok said:


> Unfortunately these again seem to be those kind of beamshots where you cannot really compare the beams directly - the camera is tilted in different angles for all the lights, for example, and the 1 powerled Sigma seems to be brighter than the Betty... all these are good for is to have a general idea of the beam type - flood or spot.
> Hope is only about 300 lumens, because they still use the old 5w leds (this is a case when I have to praise smaller vendors like Dinotte and Lupine who almost instantly update their lights when new technology gets available...).


Hmm, when I look at the beamshots, I see the core of the beam is focused at 10m for all of them. As for the Sigma being brighter, I think it's safe to say that the Sigma beam pattern sucks and all of it's power is concentrated to a small circle, which may be brighter than the Betty, but also useless.

I'm less excited about total lumen ratings. First they aren't rated by an independent third party. Second, where is the measurement made? What would be very helpful is to have a graph showing lumens at certain distances and angles (left to right, up and down) from the light. This is a tall order and for now I'll settle for these beamshots which are very helpful. Thanks for the post!!


----------



## icycle (Apr 20, 2004)

problematiks said:


> I actually like the offering from Hope more than the Lupine one.Hope has a nicelly even beam while Lupine has too much brightness in the center for my liking.
> 
> Marko


Me too, plus Betty is very expensive. But I could not find the Hope "Epic" anywhere, only the "Vision" model here:
http://www.hopetechusa.com/voir_visled.html

Looks the same, so maybe Epic is the name for the longer burn time (2 battery) version?


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

Some of us have the Betty coming in. We also have experience with the ARC, which has the best beam pattern I have ever seen so we will report back. I did notice that is I moved my monitor viewing angle, I could see more to the sides so I still have high hopes for the Betty. If you go to the Lupine website, you can compare the different Lupine light beams as well but I'll put up a review soon after I get mine.


----------



## SurfHenk (Dec 13, 2005)

*Some Betty feedback..*

I am a Betty user since a few weeks and do recognise the lighting pattern shown in the picture
but...
only when I point my light way too low (to the ground).

The angle I have adopted is way higher as it gives me a view even further down the road and still more than enough light directly in front of me. When pointed like this, you get a very even beam from your front wheel upto many tens of meters (to avoid receiving a 'fanboy' label, I will not say how many I estimate, but it's a lot...), without the hotspot shown in the picture and pointing so far outrunning it would be near impossible.

I do suppose however that in order to be able to compare all these lights, certain parameters were kept constant and I can undertsand this choice. In this test one of the constants obviously was to point the focus of all lights to a mark 10m away. For the Betty however, this certainly is very far from it's optimal angle and this could well be the case for other lights in the test as well...

Having said all this, I certainly will not say the Betty is perfect. In fact, I could still use a wider beam pattern and have found out that I need another, helmet-mounted, light for those sharp singletrack corners. As a single helmet mounted light the Betty beam is wide enough for singletrack I am sure but mounted on the handlebars it is not.
I am therefore very curious to a comparison between the Betty and the ARC, as I have never seen an ARC but have read many praises regarding it's excellent wide beam.
So let's hear those results!!


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I'd definitely mount the Betty on the helmet if I only had one light. Just wait a couple of weeks. A few ARC owners like us will have the Betty and the Wilma and be able to compare and contrast. I agree than LEDs in general need better peripheral light; not just the Lupines. Given what I have heard, I'm willing to bet we will see some incredible beam patterns at next year's Interbike.

I still have high hopes for the Betty as one helmet-mounted light or as a second light on the bar with something else on the helmet (Wilma in my case). HIDs still have two years to rule and then they can RIP. Till then, it's premature and overly optimistic to call them relics- at least for the best ones out there.


----------



## SurfHenk (Dec 13, 2005)

*the battle of the giants*

Betty as a single helmet-mounted light will indeed be wide and bright enough.
It is an option I will certainly test one of the coming nights, although I attach a lot of importance on being able to see the terrain details and therefore on a handlebar mounted light. It is for this reason I have already ordered a smaller helmet light to complement my Betty and I am sure that using both together will give me all the light I 'need' and than some..
Even though my 'needs' will be satisfied, I am still curious regarding the Betty/Arc comparison as I wonder how much wider the ARC really is...


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

icycle said:


> Me too, plus Betty is very expensive. But I could not find the Hope "Epic" anywhere, only the "Vision" model here:
> http://www.hopetechusa.com/voir_visled.html
> 
> Looks the same, so maybe Epic is the name for the longer burn time (2 battery) version?


Yes it is:
http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ProductDeta...sion LED Epic Universal Bar Mount Front Light
As a matter of fact:
MBR Review

"Doubling the cells in the Epic battery doubles the size of the pack over the conventional set-up, but it's still small enough to stem mount on anything over 80mm long. From the two 5watt LEDs the beam is wide, bright and extends far enough into the middle distance for most riding, but not quite far enough for tanking down fast trails at over 20mph, where roots and rocks come into vision later than is ideal."


----------



## radirpok (Feb 1, 2006)

icycle said:


> Hmm, when I look at the beamshots, I see the core of the beam is focused at 10m for all of them. As for the Sigma being brighter, I think it's safe to say that the Sigma beam pattern sucks and all of it's power is concentrated to a small circle, which may be brighter than the Betty, but also useless.


You are right about the pointing of the beams, which makes the overall comparison much better, but I still don't get why they couldn't do all the shots with the same tilt (and we still don't know anything about the other settings of the camera). The problem is exactly that for the first glance the Sigma _might_ seem to be a better (or at least brighter) light than the Betty, and only after a careful examination can you say which is brighter in reality. If they photographed all the lights with exactly the same settings then this would have been obvious from the very beginning.



icycle said:


> I'm less excited about total lumen ratings. First they aren't rated by an independent third party. Second, where is the measurement made? What would be very helpful is to have a graph showing lumens at certain distances and angles (left to right, up and down) from the light. This is a tall order and for now I'll settle for these beamshots which are very helpful. Thanks for the post!!


Nice idea. However until that happens we have to make do with these pictures and the lumens ratings which give at least a vague idea about the lights' performance. If you have a light rated at 200 lumens and another one at 500, there is one thing for sure: the 500 lumens _will_ be significantly brighter than the other (or cover a significantly larger area). So in this sense the lumens ratings are useful.


----------



## the-gimpster (Oct 31, 2007)

If any Ayup users are looking at these pictures could you please post how the Ayups compare to the Hope Epic. My mind was made up on Ayup but after seeing this picture of the Hope I'm not so sure. Thanks.


----------



## the-gimpster (Oct 31, 2007)

If any Ayup users are looking at these pictures could you please post how the Ayups compare to the Hope Epic. My mind was made up on Ayup but after seeing this picture of the Hope I'm not so sure. Thanks.


----------



## the-gimpster (Oct 31, 2007)

How do Ayups compare to the Hope beam picture. Had made my mind up on Ayup until I saw this Hope beam shot.


----------



## jmilliron (Aug 24, 2007)

I just got a Dinotte 600L. It puts out some serious light and seems to be a real well put together piece of kit. I'll try and get some useful beam shots tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

*Lupines are easily upgradeable*

One thing to note about Lupine is that they offer upgrades to LED/beam patterns down the road. We can upgrade our lights a year or two down the road and take advantage of all the technological progress Lupine makes. And the more I look at Betty pics wherever I can find them, I think it is the light to beat in every sense. The distance is incredible and if you're flying down at 20-35 mph, it is one light you cannot outrun.

I'll definitely compare it to the ARC beam width and throw but I think I'll be very happy with the Betty/Wilma combo and I'm generally not easy to please. Of course, if I'm not happy, I generally don't hold back either so wait and see what happens


----------



## Alex SP (Sep 25, 2007)

I took some pics (although not on a trail - yet) of the ARC and Wilma beams to post here. I had to discard a few since they were awfull, but some came out pretty nice and revealing. I´ll be taking some more on the trails this weekend (weather allowing).

I´ve found the Wilma to be more powerfull than the ARC by a good margin. It´s bright and white, very smooth. It is wide too, though I can´t really tell if wider than the ARC´s and/or by how much. We certainly can´t tell it from any pics, no matter how good or precise. But that´s what we´ve got to compare all these lights, so...

As I said in my topic about the first comparisonI did between the two lights, the kind of light coming out of the HID lamp, coupled with the reflector of the ARC, seems to stick or reflect on to everything in its halo, which is pretty wide indeed. That alone somehow "brighten" things up in a very good way, giving the sensation that at some times it´s brighter than the Wilma. But there´s no question the Wilma is much more powerfull. It´s blinding (when I look into its beam I get a headache, whereas the ARC beam hurts the eyes  - no, I don´t stare direclty at it, of course).

I was really impressed with the beam pics of the iBlaast Digital. We get good reviews of the Dinotte as well. As for beam pics, I´d take Lupine´s as one of the best and most close to reality, those seem very well taken and accurate. Still, I found the Wilma to be brighter and wider than shown there.


----------



## Dominik.M (Sep 21, 2007)

This test is seriously ****ed up...  
300 lumen light loook almost the same as 1200 lumen (hope epic vs betty)
200 lumen led is superior to 600 lumen HID (Powerled Black vs Topeak HID)

I know that they need so sale Sigma Powerled Black but they can do it better way...


----------



## Alex SP (Sep 25, 2007)

Flyer said:


> One thing to note about Lupine is that they offer upgrades to LED/beam patterns down the road. We can upgrade our lights a year or two down the road and take advantage of all the technological progress Lupine makes. And the more I look at Betty pics wherever I can find them, I think it is the light to beat in every sense. The distance is incredible and if you're flying down at 20-35 mph, it is one light you cannot outrun.
> 
> ...


Excellent observation Flyer. Indeed the possibility to easily (although not necessarily "cheaply" - nothing is cheap when it comes to Lupine ) upgrade LEDs and lenses is all too important. I can see the Wilma reaching 1000 lumens anytime soon, maybe even next yr as LED technology is advancing so fast. Of course, that should take the Betty to what, 2000 lumens? Whoa  If I stop for a snack or a fix in the middle of a trail and it´s as dry as it is latelly here, and I keep 2000 lumens directed to a tree or something I might just start a fire hehehe...


----------



## The Squeaky Wheel (Dec 30, 2003)

Alex SP said:


> Excellent observation Flyer. Indeed the possibility to easily (although not necessarily "cheaply" - nothing is cheap when it comes to Lupine ) upgrade LEDs and lenses is all too important. I can see the Wilma reaching 1000 lumens anytime soon, maybe even next yr as LED technology is advancing so fast. Of course, that should take the Betty to what, 2000 lumens? Whoa  If I stop for a snack or a fix in the middle of a trail and it´s as dry as it is latelly here, and I keep 2000 lumens directed to a tree or something I might just start a fire hehehe...


If I point a Betty up at the sky and at the same time check Google Earth, do you think I could see my beam?


----------



## MaximusHQ (Aug 6, 2007)

Thanks msxtr for posting these pics. Also I can't wait to see what you think of the Lupine Betty Flyer and please post some pics of it if you can as that light interests me too.


----------



## ToddN (Feb 2, 2007)

Alex SP said:


> Excellent observation Flyer. Indeed the possibility to easily (although not necessarily "cheaply" - *nothing is cheap when it comes to Lupine *) upgrade LEDs and lenses is all too important. I can see the Wilma reaching 1000 lumens anytime soon, maybe even next yr as LED technology is advancing so fast. Of course, that should take the Betty to what, 2000 lumens? Whoa  If I stop for a snack or a fix in the middle of a trail and it´s as dry as it is latelly here, and I keep 2000 lumens directed to a tree or something I might just start a fire hehehe...


Something to think about... When the upgrade was available for Wilma, making it 750 lumens from 420 or 380, with no comprimise on burn time, it only cost $149 retail, and it was a DIY.


----------



## Alex SP (Sep 25, 2007)

The Squeaky Wheel said:


> If I point a Betty up at the sky and at the same time check Google Earth, do you think I could see my beam?


Hmmm... good question  Hehehe... Try this:. crank teh stereo up and put the Betty on "flashing" mode in a dark room or garage. I did just that the other day with my Wilma and it looks exaclty like those moving heads or scan lights found in clubs. Wicked.

(I know, I know... I shoud be riding instead but it was raining )


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

All I can say is my Betty better be putting her clothes on and heading out my way. I have much to put that light through. If I can feel completely comfortable though steep downhills that go on forever, loose and sharp turns at speed, a rockgarden that actually turns, and switchbacks that always make me cringe, it can have my endorsement. I can easily compare it to the Wilma, the ARC, the Phantom, and possibly the Trinewt as well. A buddy is very keen on the 600L as well so I may have yet another good light to compare it to very soon.

The only problem is that I'll be so much easier to spot by the Rangers. I'll be investing dark camo and ready to turn the lights off and run into the woods.


----------



## Cino (Oct 31, 2007)

Funny, now I look at the Betty shot through a different monitor and it appears that the turf is well lighted all the way to the bottom of the photo. The last 5 meters appeared to be dark on my other monitor.


----------



## MaximusHQ (Aug 6, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Something to think about... When the upgrade was available for Wilma, making it 750 lumens from 420 or 380, with no comprimise on burn time, it only cost $149 retail, and it was a DIY.


That was a nice upgrade for the older wilma users and came close to doubling the light output. Imagine if they offer an upgrade for the 830 lumen wilma that doubled its output. That would be really sic, although the people who bought the lupine betty light probably would not be too happy unless they get a killer upgrade as well. It makes for an exciting time for bike lighting with the LEDs thrown in the mix.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

MaximusHQ said:


> Thanks msxtr for posting these pics. Also I can't wait to see what you think of the Lupine Betty Flyer and please post some pics of it if you can as that light interests me too.


I will definitely post my Betty impressions after my first ride. I plan on going to my favorite night trail once I get the Betty. I'm just waiting for Larry at mtnhighcyclery to get the Betty in. As soon as Todd sends him one (or more) I'll drive up there and pick mine up. Larry is one of the newest Lupine dealers.

I hope my lowly camera can capture the pictures effectively but if it does not, I'll try to describe the beam and the experience as effectively as possible. I'll also review the Wilma in detail.


----------



## ToddN (Feb 2, 2007)

MaximusHQ said:


> That was a nice upgrade for the older wilma users and came close to doubling the light output. Imagine if they offer an upgrade for the 830 lumen wilma that doubled its output. That would be really sic, although the people who bought the lupine betty light probably would not be too happy unless they get a killer upgrade as well. It makes for an exciting time for bike lighting with the LEDs thrown in the mix.


Rest assured. If/when there is an upgrade available for the 830 Wilma, there will be one for the Betty.


----------



## ToddN (Feb 2, 2007)

Cino said:


> Funny, now I look at the Betty shot through a different monitor and it appears that the turf is well lighted all the way to the bottom of the photo. The last 5 meters appeared to be dark on my other monitor.


Don't trust the photos... The light needs to be seen in person.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

*James' Review and Francis has some lights too*

I hope James is going to get his review started up soon. Todd, you have to get him a Betty to test as well. He does a pretty good job. I hear Francis may have some lights too. Let's get this party started......


----------



## ToddN (Feb 2, 2007)

Flyer said:


> I hope James is going to get his review started up soon. Todd, you have to get him a Betty to test as well. He does a pretty good job. I hear Francis may have some lights too. Let's get this party started......


Yeah I'm trying to get James one, but the supply/demand thing is killing me. I've talked with him recently, and as soon as I have something I can send him I will!


----------



## gemini9999 (Oct 22, 2007)

James said that he won't have his review until mid to late December. He said he's still waiting for some lights for the review.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I take back what I said about sending one to James. Just worry about sending me mine first. :yesnod: 

Well, this is the flagship of all flagship lights right now so I guess James can have one as well- after mine leaves :devil:


----------



## Psycho Mike (Apr 2, 2006)

As someone who got his mitts on a Hope stem and has seen an HID Vision, I think the LED will be quite the light when they update the emitters  May even be enough to get me to buy one and get away from halogens


----------

