Some of you have been asking in the comments
if I've changed something in my videos recently,
and I have: I started using a different key light.
Let's get Undone.
[offbeat music]
♪ Gerald Undone ♪
♪ He's crazy ♪
What's happening, everybody? I'm Gerald Undone
♪ And I'm not crazy, I'm just a little unwell ♪
♪ I know, right now you can't tell ♪
♪ But stay a while and maybe then you'll see ♪
So, today's video isn't going to be a standard review,
but rather, I'd like to start a discussion about design
because the biggest difference between my new light
and my old light, in my opinion, is a smarter
and more rugged design. But, those design improvements
also take the price from $278 up to $498.
So, I'm going to show you all of those design improvements
and then I want you to let me know in the comments
if those are features you think are worth
spending the extra money for or if you'd rather have
the old design and save the money.
So, here's my old light, the Aputure HR672W.
I've been recommending this panel for quite a while now
and I've shot a lot of my videos with it.
It's mostly plastic and features some poorly implemented
design choices, but it dose work quite well
and when placed behind an umbrella,
you get a nice, accurate and soft light.
This light comes in at $278 US, but if you're willing
to spend $500, then you can get
Aputure's flagship model, the Tri-8.
[synth pop instrumental]
♪
So, before we get into that design question,
let's just do a quick comparison of the lights.
After a little tweaking, I was able to get them
to look pretty similar. Both have a colour accuracy
of greater than 95 on CRI, and in this comparison,
both are lighting me from the same position,
behind an umbrella.
The temperatures read a little different though.
The 672 is a daylight panel at 5500 Kelvin,
but the Tri-8 is a bi-color panel and is a tad off.
I had to set it to 5900 Kelvin to get it to match the 672.
It also runs a little more red than the 672,
but thankfully, Aputure included a plus green filter
which not only removes the excess red and magenta,
but also increases the overall colour accuracy of the panel.
The other difference is the beam angle.
The 672W has a wide beam angle of 75 degrees
and can fill up an umbrella nicely, even when placed
quite close to it. And when using an umbrella,
you definitely want to fill it up as much as possible
in order to give you a larger light source
which will give you a softer light.
The Tri-8 has a rather spotty beam angle of only 25 degrees,
which makes it worse for umbrella use
and modifications needed to be made.
First, I had to create more distance between the panel
and the umbrella in order to allow it the chance
to fill it better, and then I used the included Softbox's
side walls in order to control some of that glare and spill.
But, I didn't use the diffusion panel of the Softbox
because it doesn't really do that much
and I was shooting through an umbrella anyway.
After I made those changes, the lights were falling on me
pretty similarly, but the power setting on the Tri-8
had to be higher due to the extra distance
and the added filter. But, I also noticed that
the power settings on the Tri-8 seem to scale up
differently than the 672.
The 672 powers up quite linearly, but the Tri-8
seems to have a strong curve to it where it doesn't pull
ahead of the 672 until about 75%-80% power,
which was surprising to me considering the Tri-8
is rated for triple the potential illuminance.
The 672 has an illuminance of 2080 lux at one meter,
where the Tri-8 has 6500.
After I got the lights all set up,
grading the clips was pretty much the same.
Just minor adjustments to contrast and white balance
and a touch of saturation. And after all that was done,
I have a light that's pretty hard to tell apart
from the 672-- other than the background
The 672 tends to illuminate the background quite a bit more,
where because the Tri-8 is more focused,
the background is a bit darker and moodier.
But other than that, the light on me is very similar
and that's why I said, for me, the only real difference
is the design because I can make the image match
pretty closely, but I can't change the design elements
that I don't like on the 672.
So, let's compare a couple of those elements now.
Both of those lights take Sony NPF style batteries
and both kits come with two quality large capacity
NPF970 batteries, but the 672's battery slots
are frustrating and painful to use.
You have to jam your fingernail into this little plastic groove
to push down this tongue thing to make
the battery come out, and it rarely works
and you constantly feel like you're gonna break something
and you almost always hurt your finger.
On the Tri-8, you just slide them in vertically,
not horizontally, and when you wanna take them out,
there's this button you can press, which is red
and aesthetically pleasing, and the batteries just come out
with no trouble. If you wanna use mains power,
the Tri-8 has the AC adapter affixed to the panel,
so there's nothing dangling, and you just put
the power cord into it and it's secure and tidy.
And the adapter could be replaced with a v-mount plate
if you prefer to use larger batteries
because there's a D-Tap input on the side.
On the 672, there is a dangling adapter,
and what's worse is it uses a mini din connector,
which sticks out from the panel
and does not feel secure and is easy to break.
But the whole panel's kind of easy to break on the 672.
It's light, which is nice, but it's just plastic,
and I can't imagine it would fare well after a fall.
The Tri-8, on the other hand, is metal,
and the entire body is actually just a heat sink
for the panel to keep it cool,
which is another interesting design idea
and that heat sink looks awesome in that red finish.
And it has these great handles that make it easy to hold
without sticking your fingers on the panel
and it allows it to stand up by itself without putting
pressure on the batteries. And if you have batteries
and mains power connected at the same time,
both panels will allow you to charge the batteries,
but the 672 only gives you a rudimentary bar display.
Where the Tri-8 gives you a percentage with
a time remaining indicator, which is pretty great.
The knob on the Tri-8 is better too.
It's dampened and feels more precise
when changing the output or the temperature.
The 672's knob feels a bit sloppy at times,
but both come with the same wireless remote
which works quite well and will work on either panel.
The 672 has exposed diodes that you need to be mindful of,
so I strongly suggest that you keep this diffusion panel
deployed at all times. But even that feels
a little bit cheap, and it can be kind of hard sometimes
to get it to lock in. [sharp click]
The Tri-8, on the other hand, has a really strong,
clear plastic protecting the diodes that doesn't come off
and really seems like it could take a beating.
The diodes themselves are also distributed in a smarter way
on the Tri-8, and it's not just to resemble the Aputure logo,
but it helps break up the patterns and shadow splicing
that's often caused by rows of diodes in typical LED panels.
To further help this cause, the Tri-8 also comes with
Aputure's EZ Box/Softbox contraption, but I personally
hate that thing. Because it was included
with the Tri-8, it doesn't really bother me that much
and like I was saying, I use the side walls out of it,
but I bought one of these things separately for the 672
a while back and it is definitely not worth the money.
They don't really soften the light that much
and they're a complete pain to put on
when it's fully disassembled, and it's so much easier
to pop an umbrella open in front of one of these panels.
And not only does it give a much better result,
but it's quite a bit cheaper than the $65 EZ Box.
But, because I like putting these panels behind umbrellas
so much, I am appreciative that each panel comes with a head
that has a built-in umbrella holder. However, that head
might be the only bad design choice on the Tri-8.
Considering that it's plastic and the Tri-8 is so
much heavier than the 672 is, which I think that head
is fine for, it seems like a questionable choice
to use a plastic head on such a heavy light.
And in fact, Caleb over at DSLR Video Shooter
posted that just two weeks after using it,
he's already got a crack in it trying to hold up the Tri-8.
And unfortunately, almost two years later,
they still haven't updated that head inside the package.
However, to end on a positive, even the carrying case
for the Tri-8 is much nicer and more aesthetically pleasing.
You just get a more premium experience all the way around.
Anyways, that's pretty much it.
The Tri-8 isn't a brand new light by any means.
It had been out for a while, but I didn't see
any comparisons on YouTube between it and the 672.
So, I figured I'd make one and give the Tri-8 a little
bit of a test run as my key light for a little while
since I didn't actually get one when it first came out.
Now, let's get back to my question about if you would
pay more for smarter design, and if so, how much more?
I would still recommend the 672W to somebody
who had needs similar to mine,
and who had a budget of under $300.
But, if their budget was increased to $500,
would I recommend the Tri-8 instead? And I'm not sure.
One of the things that we really didn't talk about on the Tri-8
is that it has bi-color range.
It's great and can go all the way down to 2300 Kelvin
and then up to 6800 Kelvin without losing much output.
But if you're only gonna be to be switching back and forth
between daylight and Tungsten, there is a CTO
that comes included with the 672
that might get the same job done.
So, if all you care about is getting an acceptable image,
I think the 672W will work fine.
And in fact, in some ways, it could become a simple key
light faster and easier than the Tri-8 can.
But, if you appreciate the smarter battery releases
and AC adapter placement, the more rugged connections
and panel design, the extra protection
and the better diode layout, and the more useful
and informative display, then you might prefer the Tri-8.
Especially if you treat your gear roughly
or are prone to dropping things.
But, that's my question to you guys. Do you think
features like that are worth $220 more? And if not,
how much would you pay to get that better design?
Let me know in the comments below.
But, that's gonna be it for me. I hope you found this video
helpful or at least entertaining, and if you did,
make sure to leave it the old thumbs up
and consider subscribing if you haven't already,
but if you did not find this video helpful or entertaining,
feel free to hit the dislike button twice.
Alright... I'm done.