# Popular hot wire comparison



## Billy Ram (Dec 4, 2009)

FM09...m*g85...m*g458





Tower 200yds




in the dark




m*g85




FM09




m*g458




The FM09 is the smallest but not the weakest. About twice as bright as the m*g85 it packs a punch. The m*g85 isn't weak it's just keeping company with some serious lights.
Billy


----------



## Dioni (Dec 4, 2009)

Thanks for the pics Billy. :thumbsup:

The FM09 seems much stronger than the mag85, and the mag458 is just amazing. 
Perhaps you could take some pics of wa1185 compared to fm1909, but with more exposure.

Cheers,
Dioni


----------



## RichS (Dec 4, 2009)

Dioni said:


> Perhaps you could take some pics of wa1185 compared to fm1909, but with more exposure.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dioni


Agreed - nice setup for a great high-output beamshot comparison, but you need to increase the exposure. Since you used a 2 second in these, maybe increase it to 4 or 5 seconds?.. The Mag85 shot barely looks any different than the control shot, and based on my Mag85 I know it looks a lot brighter than that to the eye.

Absolutely love the green lights BTW..that 458 is just sick...


----------



## Mjolnir (Dec 4, 2009)

It seems like doing a longer exposure would just make the sky overexposed. Was it not completely night yet, or was there just a full moon or a lot of light pollution? Perhaps some beamshots with a dark background (not the sky in the background) would better show the intensity of the beams.


----------



## RichS (Dec 4, 2009)

Mjolnir said:


> It seems like doing a longer exposure would just make the sky overexposed. Was it not completely night yet, or was there just a full moon or a lot of light pollution? Perhaps some beamshots with a dark background (not the sky in the background) would better show the intensity of the beams.


One other thing to try is only increasing the exposure slightly (maybe 3 seconds) but increasing the ISO to 200 instead of 100. This approach worked best for me in my last set of beamshots.


----------



## Billy Ram (Dec 4, 2009)

The conditions may not have been best for beam shots and the tower isn't very reflective. I still got a good comparison but the least powerful light didn't show up much. It may have been better to leave the 458 out and increase the exposure. Too much exposure with the 458 doesn't work out too well. I'm learning.
Billy


----------



## Dioni (Dec 4, 2009)

Billy Ram said:


> The conditions may not have been best for beam shots and the tower isn't very reflective. I still got a good comparison but the least powerful light didn't show up much. It may have been better to leave the 458 out and increase the exposure. Too much exposure with the 458 doesn't work out too well. I'm learning.
> Billy


 
Exactly! :thumbsup:

yet, as Mjolnir said, there is also a big piece of sky in background.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Dec 5, 2009)

Good effort Billy. Couple tips I found from talking to others and trial/error.



1) Avoid full moon. Cloudy, 1/4 moon or less can be OK.


2) Avoid ambient lighted areas. Some that won't interfere can be OK. Trial and Error.


3) Always use camera tripod and table/stool/platform for light.


4) Aim lights at same fixed object.


5) Use camera setting that shows spill of least bright light.


6) Start with these *Manual Mode* camera settings, but be willing to come back download image and see if it works. Always use at least 2 sec delayed to prevent movement, and let auto-focus work.


AWB - Daylight
ISO 100
F-Stop 3.2
4-7 sec exposure (depending on output ranges tested)

If you can add labels to lights with item tested and camera settings, it makes a nice reference for people used to comparing to others they have seen. This gif is from shots I took a while back, but with labels it can still be understood.


----------



## Billy Ram (Dec 5, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Good effort Billy. Couple tips I found from talking to others and trial/error.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very helpful information. My old Cyber-Shot DSC-P10 "with limited manual settings" may not be the best for beam shots but I'm getting it dialed in. The operator has limited experiance too and needs dialing in. 
Thank you Lux
Billy


----------



## Billy Ram (Dec 5, 2009)

Ok folks I've tryed to get a better beam shots by finding better conditions and making some adjustments so here's the results. Tree is 75 yds.
















I hope I don't get banned for posting too many junk photos.

Billy


----------



## LuxLuthor (Dec 5, 2009)

Much better, but I think you should even go longer on exposure so you can see the spill of the Mag85. What were your settings on that series? Admittedly trying to use one setting for both Mag85 & 458 makes it harder to find the sweet spot, but a Mag85 should not look like a girlie-man's light either. Keep up the great work. :thumbsup:


----------



## Josey (Dec 5, 2009)

Thanks for the excellent comparison shots. They show one reason why I gave up on the Mag 85 some years ago.


----------



## bk737 (Dec 5, 2009)

:twothumbs:rock:Awesome beamshots Billy Ram!


----------



## Billy Ram (Dec 5, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Much better, but I think you should even go longer on exposure so you can see the spill of the Mag85. What were your settings on that series? Admittedly trying to use one setting for both Mag85 & 458 makes it harder to find the sweet spot, but a Mag85 should not look like a girlie-man's light either. Keep up the great work. :thumbsup:


This camera doesn't allow a fixed exposure. It only allows adjustment and I have it set to the highest setting. The m*g85 is brighter than the picture represents.

Thanks for the excellent comparison shots. They show one reason why I gave up on the Mag 85 some years ago. 
I haven't given up on my m*g85. It's bright, has a long run time and is with me all the time.
Billy


----------



## LumenHound (Dec 5, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Much better, but I think you should even go longer on exposure so you can see the spill of the Mag85. What were your settings on that series? Admittedly trying to use one setting for both Mag85 & 458 makes it harder to find the sweet spot, but a Mag85 should not look like a girlie-man's light either. Keep up the great work. :thumbsup:


When pitted against a 458, the Mag85 *is* a girlie-man's light.

Billy, thanks for posting those beamshots.


----------



## Billy Ram (Dec 5, 2009)

LumenHound said:


> When pitted against a 458, the Mag85 *is* a girlie-man's light.
> 
> Billy, thanks for posting those beamshots.


 I'm surprized the batterys haven't went dead on the m*g458 with all these beam shots and getting set up. The Elite 1700s are really hanging in there.
You're quite welcome
Billy


----------



## RichS (Dec 5, 2009)

Awesome shots!! Wow, this really illustrates the bump in output from the 1185 to the 1909 - easily doubled it..just amazing. To me the Mag09 looks almost 3 times as bright.. Yes the Mag85 shot is still quite a bit dimmer than in real life, but in these shots it is much easier to see the full beam pattern of each light which makes for a great comparison - very nice job! 

BTW - anyone that would give up on the Mag85 is just nuts IMO.. who would turn down almost 60 minutes of runtime at 1300 lumens?? :shakehead Yes, the Mag458 output is absolutely sick, for the ~2 minutes you can let it run before the light melts down....

I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of making an animated Gif of your shots:


----------



## Billy Ram (Dec 5, 2009)

Thank you Rich
Billy


----------



## Linger (Dec 5, 2009)

+1 for the HUGE progress in just two rounds of beamshots.

We all appreciate you sharing the first set. Determined to improve, the additional effort in location and composition for the 2nd set has created a very helpful trio of comparison pics.


----------



## Mjolnir (Dec 6, 2009)

It seems like the placement of those three lights and the camera were kept essentially in the exact same place for all 3 shots. In fact, the 1185 and 1909 shots look almost like they could be from a 2 mode light (the 458 is just too ridiculous for that). The edges of the spill for the first 2 lights seem to be in almost the exact same place. How did you get the lights aimed at almost the exact same spot each time?

It's interesting that the 64458 bulb does not throw as well as the other 2 lights, even with a larger reflector. It must not have a very impressive surface brightness, even with its high output. What cells are you using for the Mag85?


----------



## Billy Ram (Dec 6, 2009)

Mjolnir said:


> It seems like the placement of those three lights and the camera were kept essentially in the exact same place for all 3 shots. In fact, the 1185 and 1909 shots look almost like they could be from a 2 mode light (the 458 is just too ridiculous for that). The edges of the spill for the first 2 lights seem to be in almost the exact same place. How did you get the lights aimed at almost the exact same spot each time?
> 
> It's interesting that the 64458 bulb does not throw as well as the other 2 lights, even with a larger reflector. It must not have a very impressive surface brightness, even with its high output. What cells are you using for the Mag85?


Quite easy! I used 2 tripods. After aiming the camera I just pushed the button for the exposures. The other for the lights I turned the platform 90* and just strapped the lights in the corner. So changing lights the tripods weren't moved.
Don't let these close in beam shots fool you. The m*g458 has a quite intense hot spot that's large and round. When the distance is stretched out the m*g458 will out throw the m*g85. "Check out the 200yd beam shots" The m*g458 is illuminating the island well beyound the tower.
I'm using Titanium 2700s in the m*g85 and have done some resitance mods. It draws 3.2-3.3a. at the tail cap and it's quite bright. I have the bulb well centered and tightly focused for throwing.
PS: My camera may be adjusting the brightness some when shooting the m*g458.
Billy


----------



## LuxLuthor (Dec 6, 2009)

Billy Ram said:


> This camera doesn't allow a fixed exposure. It only allows adjustment and I have it set to the highest setting. The m*g85 is brighter than the picture represents.
> 
> Thanks for the excellent comparison shots. They show one reason why I gave up on the Mag 85 some years ago.
> I haven't given up on my m*g85. It's bright, has a long run time and is with me all the time.
> Billy



Ahh, very sorry then. I thought you had a manual time exosure setting. Very good work in that case! :thumbsup:


----------



## Dioni (Dec 6, 2009)

GREAT beamshots now! 

You appear to be a determined person. 

Thanks Billy!


----------



## Dioni (Dec 17, 2009)

Hey Billy! 
We want to see more pics of these lights. Now however 'melting' snow! :devil:

Cheers,
Dioni


----------



## Billy Ram (Dec 18, 2009)

Dioni said:


> Hey Billy!
> We want to see more pics of these lights. Now however 'melting' snow! :devil:
> 
> Cheers,
> Dioni


 Well Dioni that would be fun doing beam shots in the snow but it never snows down here. "All most never" I live in the deep south and if we do get a flurry it doesn't stick very well. Up state in the foot hills are going to get some snow today. "About 120 mi. north of here" The last freek snow we had with any accumulation was back in feb.73. It was a record 14" that shut every thing down a few days. Had a blast on my Bultaco til all my gas was gone.
Billy


----------

