reading 0 until 60-70 lux and seemingly non linear reading after that
wrong response curve (the difference between a good luxmeter and the bad one was different depending on the light "color")
According to what the seller told me Tasi was admitting that there was something wrong with a whole batch (first batch new design ?) but that they were going to solve it.
0 and non linear readings should be easy to solve for Tasi (programming parameters) but i doubt then can change the response curve without replacing the filter and/or sensor.
Maybe yours is from the "new fixed" ones. That would good news but we still have to see if the response curve is correct
It is red top, thusfar it seems those should be good.
Tasiās story of a bad batch is complete crap, those blacktops have dozenās of design changes for the worse, that is not a mistake, that is intent. The next batch will not have all that reversed because someone on BLF found out what they did. They cheaped the design and then make up a story.
They changed the sensor and filter and did not change the calibration accordingly : that was big a mistake (they call it bad batch) but that one should easily be solved as long as the calibration parameters can be reprogramed
I agree that it won't solve everything but at least it should make the new 8133 as usable as any cheap luxmeter (while the old was pretty good)
That graph does not match what I found in the OP, it would be a better luxmeter if it matches this graph. It is probably because Tasi measures the wavelength in nonometets.
Hello, everyone. This is my first post in the forum
Iām also looking for my first light meter.
Already made one styrofoam integration sphere and tried to measure some Phillips lamps with a Canon EOS 50D from RAW data :D. But thatās another long story.
Iām currently aiming for a relative consistency measurements between the lights. And later I will try to use absolute djozz-lumens
Obviously, it is much easier if you have a dedicated (dedomed) lux meter for the sphere.
So, I have contacted all stores (6-7) currently selling Tasi 8133 on Aliexpress, asking them which version they have. Some like frank hu, honestly reply they have only the black one.
Still, one replied that they have the red-capped one and sent me a picture. The store is Ali World Shopping Center.
So I want to ask you:
1.Has anyone bought a bad TASI 8133 from this shop?
2.Are the serial numbers the same on all TASI 8133, good or bad ones? (Iāve seen products from China with a single serial number for all units in a batch before)
3.What is your TASI 8133 serial number, djozz? The one on this picture seems to be 16303260(?).
Notice the darker red color of the cap. Is this normal?
4.I will probably buy one more cheap meter to have as a backup, if the TASI is totally screwed. Has anyone bought any of these: TL-601 TES-1332A
The dark red bit is what mine also has. The serial number of my TA8133 is different: 17001457.
I guess that you have the ok quality version, but to be sure you can check how the inside of the sensor is build, see post #2 and post #30. (If you just take a look and do not mess around inside the sensor, it should not affect the calibration).
I ordered the TASI and the TL601, so I will write back when they arrive.
The TES seems to be too good to be true - many shops sell it for 100$+ and 32$ on ebay is quite the step down.
Also there seems to be a version with a wide dome and one with a much smaller one, all bearing the same model number, so thatās a bad sign too.
Now I only need to find some calibrated sources. Apart from buying from a laboratory, do you know any other way to obtain something that doesnāt vary too much in lumen output from unit to unit?
Iāve read in one of the pinned topics here that the Convoy S2+ is a very popular first thing to buy.
Have you compared what you get out of the box, e.g. for a L2 T5-5B 4000-4200K unit with AMC7135*4 drivers?
Iām not interested in modding it, at least not for the moment.
I purchased this meter in January and I believe it is reasonably accurate for our purposes although Iām sure I paid less for it from an Amazon seller. I did pay for calibration and received a NIST certificate stating it was within 5 percent at 1000 and 5000 lux with a tungsten light source.
I really like the meter as it has large digits that are easier to read at 5 meters.
In the OP of this thread you would find links to my earlier luxmeter tests, the one from april 2018 included a luxmeter that at least looks very similar to the āDr Meterā one that you are interested in. But as I have learned with budget chinese luxmeters, you never know for sure what is inside even if the package looks exactly the same . Here is the link once more: 5 luxmeters compared (april 2018)
Hi djozz.
Mine is dr.meter luxmeter,as it is written on it,and my difficulty is about the peak and hold buttons.I want the reading to stay still,until I go by the meter and take the reading,but when I go there,the reading is lostā¦
I am thinking about it, although it is quite expensive, i think itās a good deal
I have contacted distrelec, note that they donāt have stock, expected delivery time is 2 weeks.
Their luxmeter sensor has a DIN class C specification so that is extremely decent. Iām not sure if Iād want such a modular device as luxmeter (not sure why) but the price seems good. Only downside that I can see is that the max is 100,000 lux while most luxmeters go to 200,000. If it works conveniently in practise can only be found out after you bought it. I.e, my Extech luxmeter reads slow, one reading refreshment per second which is annoying, I never thought about that before I bought it.
My LT45's serial no. is 200706144, so could be the year 2007, or could be a date code of 2020 July. Being that the manual id 2016, I'm guessing the serial no. reflects the year 2020.
Here's my conversion factors for the associated levels:
L0: 1.007 (incandescent)
L1: 0.846 (white)
L2: 0.881 (amber)
L3: 0.800 (green)
L4: 1.412 (red)
L5: 1.475 (blue)
L6: 1.148 (violet)
L7-L9: defaulted to 1.000
Only the colors are listed in the manual, not the conversion factors. So I think I should stick with L0.
I really, really like how this meter works - the MAX function works, unlike the LX1330B's, and you can set the distance and let it report in candela units - another great feature. I also love the battery saver feature - I've wasted a few 9V's from forgetting to turn off the meter :FACEPALM: . The calibration feature is nice, though the adjustments always seem to be very small so far.
Very much interested in a pass-around light or lights, for testing candela. Though looking over your meter results, many of the cheaper meters don't handle different temps very well, and the variations in meters can be a factor.
L0 Incandescent 1.000
L1 White daylight 1.003
L2 Amber 1.023
L3 LED green 0.852
L4 LED red 2.326
L5 LED blue 1.475
L6 LED purple 1.148
L7-9 user custum settings
So this is a completely different set of corrections. Either they updated their measurements, or they changed the hardware (sensor and/or color filter) which led to different corrections. In any case their correction 1.003 in my LT45 for āLED white daylightā is far from what I found in the OP for 5000K and higher led light, it is more like 0.95.
So I stick to 1.000 for all light sources, and their spectral sensitivity is rather good so the error stays within a few percent.
