I will say that they did change the product page so that the differences are more clear. I don’t know if they are still there but last I looked there were four or five low-star reviews that complained of the same thing. There is a graphic up top now that most people will see and it does a better job. So they were responsive to that at least.
I don’t know if a “for the price” argument holds here, simply because we are dealing with scientific measurements where accuracy is affected by so many things (and yes, repeatability as well). There’s just no way to make these accurate in a meaningful way, but something that would help is if all the sharers/reviewers were to agree to some sort of standards in terms of distance, ambient lighting, etc, etc, etc and maybe point out the shortcomings of the device when mentioning it in reviews…an asterisk disclaimer of sorts. You can’t push a river and you can’t make this device into a scientific instrument…just can’t. 
I think it has very limited uses, and it’s fun for that and cheap enough at the sale prices, but I don’t think attempting to extend its value beyond that is beneficial to anyone…jmho. The more I read about this subject and the instruments/components both on BLF and elsewhere on the web, it just became instantly clear that the Opple isn’t good for a whole lot no matter how much we want it to be, even “for the price.” Even the media devices that cost a few hundred and providing what we need really. The investment for acceptable equipment and the learning curve to use and understand it is quite expensive, which is why we’ve only ever had a small handful of people that owned them and provided the data. Apparently still no good way to circumvent that but the $600-$1000 range devices now, like the Hopoocolor, seem to be the logical step…ouch.
What I’ve noticed toying with the Opple in our office is that it’s marginally useful but it does vary an awful lot in its readings even in its intended areas of use. Good enough for larger ambient areas in an office (and for what that data is useful for to begin with). The repeatability is certainly not there, though, even when scooching it back and forth to the same spot on a flat level surface with the same body orientation. But…whatever…cheap fun, sorta. I really needed the other features more. Whatever comes of my purchase, I don’t think I’ll be spending again on an Opple device unless maybe they came out with a more capable one for more money in the future, possibly.
The old description, if you read the whole thing, did have one little tiny section that explained the difference. And the difference was pointed out fairly early in this thread if you read the whole thing. But then you have the way they labeled and named the 2 products which was confusing. You had to order the pro but pro wasn’t in the name. I think I read this thread twice and the description twice before I ordered. This thread was not this long back then though. And then when they ran out of the pro the link from here still took you to that one site that didn’t have the two choices. So I understand how some people ended up not getting the pro. I haven’t looked at their site in about a month. So I would say have a beer. If and when they get the pro model or an updated one back in stock it’s worth having. I find it very useful and entertaining to walk around the house and see how even sunlight changes bouncing off of various colored objects inside and out. It’s one thing to read about CCT and Cri and the BBL but it’s a whole other thing to be able to see it on a wide variety of lights. Although the graph in the app with the BBL line and the math don’t always add up based on the converter linked to earlier in this thread. But I’m not sure if that’s a graph problem or converter problem or other. It is consistent though. I’m not sure I understand how it’s useful with a light box or from 2 ft away with most lights though. I’m not saying people should not experiment with different distances and or light boxes and or bouncing lights. I mostly test flashlights at about 4 ft on lower settings but I have tested some out at about 100 ft and as it gets warmer I’ll probably do more of that. I do still have a backyard covered in snow so I’m going to do some testing and document results and see if that changes once the snow is gone from a good distance with warm neutral and cold lights.
Oli, in the original (?) product listing that I saw from about October to early-February, there was no clear differentiation…except…after receiving it and scrolling way down the lower portion of the page (all the repeat photos and often additional ones), I did see one of those that kind of half-indicated the difference. Looking at the top graphics where you select the product, anyone would rightly think that they had the same core features/measurements. Additionally, back in this thread (I did read the whole thing, couple times, over months before deciding to purchase), an Opple rep apparently stated to someone that the features were indeed the same on both models. It’s just bad advertising and marketing - honest mistakes and/or translation things maybe. Their response to several disappointed customers seems to be erratic…that’s a problem. Looks like some actually ordered the Pro III when it was available and received the II instead, and apparently there is more than one version of the II that they are still offloading. So anyway, they recognize the issue and have tried to avoid future issues of the same with the now-added graphic. Doesn’t change the products, just the business end of that part of the business end. I think they must have added that graphic in mid-February. Last I looked, that pertinent info was absent from both of their websites, too.
Maybe ChibiM could edit the OP here to reflect the clear differences in the two models so that nobody else makes the mistake and subsequent posts in the thread that indicate and support that the II has the CRI and Flicker features can be ignored.
By the way, according to whoever I was messaging with on Ali, they don’t have any plans to update or alter the app, so it’ll stay just the way it is. It could use some sprucing up and easy additional options. They also don’t feel the need to include any instructions with the product so that will also probably never happen.
I’m not disputing anything you said. Mine doesn’t say anything about G3 or III. It just says Light Master PRO. So their site is still confusing. Even after reading everything twice I was only 95% sure I was getting the right one. If you’re not going to have a beer I’ll have one for you.
Haha. Fat Tire for everyone!
OR...what they could do (call me crazy!) is only sell the Pro version. For the few bucks difference, why bother with the other one?
Well, a big surprise, but after no further reply from Opple to my offer I filed a dispute with Ali and they almost instantly issued me a full refund. I really didn’t want Opple to lose money here and suggested that perhaps I could pay a small amount to have them send me the Pro III version when it was in stock (would have amounted to around $33 USD between the two transactions…the II was $19 when ordered). I was hard to describe the issue well beyond “not as advertised” in the dispute box and there are no great photos/videos to help much, so I just shared one of the photos on their product page (the original one) along with two screen shots of a reading on the app, mentioned the lack of features and the offer I’d made to them directly. It doesn’t appear that they even gave Opple a chance to respond, though, which doesn’t seem fair.
Assuming Opple will let me order from them again, if they have the Pro III back in stock at a decent price I may pick it up because for office use it was actually expected to be useful and it would be handy to have available. I wonder a little why the II version is even a thing since it provides so little information - maybe a home toy but any “professional” lighting scenarios need a bit more (and I guess they’re mostly going to gravitate to the $150-$300 media-type units anyway).
Tested some 5000K lights today as well as a 620nm red emitter on the WK30 just for kicks.
|
TS21 219C 5000K Moonlight @ 4inches (20350)
|
TS21 219C 5000K Turbo @ 2ft (20350)
|
|
WK30 LH351D 5000K Eco @ 2ft
|
WK30 LH351D 5000K High @ 2ft
|
|
WK30 XPEBRD-L1-R20 Low @ 2ft
|
WK30 XPEBRD-L1-R20 High @ 2.5ft
|
|
WK30 XPEBRD-L1-R20
|
|
Some notes: No UV test of the WK30, unsure if it'll harm the Opple sensor. WK30 Red emitter at 2ft on High overloads the sensor, funky results. TS21 moonlight is super low, had to bring it real close.
LMP G3 was also completely discharged after two days of zero use. Somewhat troubling.
I wonder if it is not turning off when you close it? I charged my Pro on 3/2 and it is currently at 92% which includes some testing of my lights. Try to pay attention to the LED next to the sensor, just start closing it, the toggle switch should activate pretty quickly and turn off the LED while it is still mostly open.
I don’t think it should harm anything at all. What little makes it through the diffuser will be scattered anyway.
Since my refunded II unit is largely useless for me, I took one for the team and pointed a Nichia 365nm (the old Convoy standard NCSU276A e-bin) in an S2+ host with filter at 1A onto it.
Interesting that no CCT registers at all. Plot is effectively off the charts…probably not reliable numbers at all but here are the screenshots. Semi-protected from ambient light when I took the reading, showing a lux of 2 before adding the UV. I settled on about 1/2” from the diffuser/sensor (just playing with the lux readings). I didn’t take notes and averages but after a half dozen shots at 1/2” the plot numbers varied by around .0020 to .0060 (depending on which), and lux was within 5% either direction I think. I took reference readings of a desk lamp and a bathroom vanity and both of those appeared to be reading about the same (within Opple’s capabilities) after the UV test, so I would suppose nothing affected the sensor negatively.
Basically what I’ve been seeing with mine under LED task lamp and overhead lighting, fluorescent tube overhead, halogen accents, and now the UV, I don’t think I trust any of the plot/DUV data at all (or I’d trust it only to .00 digits with the third digit perhaps being accurate, perhaps not…the repeatability just isn’t there. And ignore the fourth digit entirely.). Lux reading isn’t dependable either but it certainly does much better with ambient lighting and bounce lighting vs. any type of concentrated beam.
I agree with you. The Opple just isn’t accurate enough to be used in the fine-grain way that we want to measure our lights around here. It’s fine for a general idea of light quality but on BLF we are comparing detailed CRI and TM-30 data and duv measurements to four decimal places. But that isn’t going to stop people from posting inaccurate results and duv calculations from the Opple which will then be copied and pasted around other places on the web as if they are gospel. Soon there will be a plethora of wildly inaccurate data with no context floating around which will just invalidate everything. This is compounded by the fact that people really want the Opple to be accurate and may even believe it is if they have no other basis for comparison. Saying “yes I know it’s not scientifically accurate” but then posting inaccurate duv calculations doesn’t help anyone.
I like its flicker measurement function, but that’s about all I use it for.
I kind of disagree with that notion.
Most (probably ALL) of our measurements are done unscientificly.
And that's not to say they are completely wrong. But there is always a percentage that need to be taken with a grain of salt. Add or take 5-10%?
We are not working in laboratories, with thousands of dollars for each tool.
Too many variables... all the time... for all reviews... period
Take for instance; Amps... Do you really think that all the measurements are even close to the correct number of Amps?
Most people use Clamp meters that are $30....
How about the battery being used not influecing the readings? How about the wires/probes/resistance?
How about measuring CRI or even Lux/ Throw / Lumens.
Most people here use $10-30 lux meters.
All the things being said could be said about everything, and all reviewers, of all products on the internet :D
But of course there is some truth in your comments. It's only a $30 tool, but it's really helpful, and rather good for its price.
We, as reviewers do our best to get our measurements, and it's great to see similar results amongst reviewers, but I (and likely all others) wouldn't put my life on the line for my measurements.
I have invested quite a chunk of money into my tools since I started reviewing (including DSLR camera's and stuff), just to make sure I decrease the likelyhood that it's a 'tool error' rather than a 'user error'.
Yes, I'd love to get a Spectromaster or other spectrophotometer, but for the time being.. the Opple Light Master is a really cool gadget, albeit not laboratory quality.
Edit: DUV is just so variable depending on so many factors... it's really hard to tell 1 general number.
You'd have to explain the following:
- What mode it was in
- Distance to the light
- Angle of the light
- Where in the hotspot you measured
- How long the light was turned on
- Is the light using an AR coating
- probably even more than those
The question is not whether it’s laboratory quality or not, whatever that means, it whether it’s good enough for what you want to measure.
You mention tail cap current measurements but why are you making those? Only to get an idea of the current, it tells you if it’s unregulated, what kind of CDR it needs, and that’s about it, you’re not doing precise efficiency measurements, 10% would be enough, but anyway the Uni-t 210E that most people have is 2+8 according to HKJ (2+3 according to Uni-t).
The price comes after determining that the product can do what you want it to do, then you compare product of similar capabilities, that’s when you can say good for the price.
Coming back to the opple, and especially duv measurements comparing Sekonic VS Opple :
(Taken for the 1st 3 measurements in Cheule’s video, circle is sekonic, square is opple)
So the opple measurements are 4~5step, 1 step (1st circle) would be visually indistinguishable, 4~5step is quite a big difference, if you were to use this measurements you would say that the black one is a bit greenish, but it’s actually neutral, the red one neutral, but actually rosy. This data is not good enough to qualify the tint of those lights. That’s what Correlux an Royoui are saying. In my opinion it would start to be usable if it was within 2 step.
Do you know how much DUV can change depending on how you measure? What mode it is in, how long the light is turned on, etc?
So many variables..
And how about CCT? or CRI?
You don't think the Opple could be used for those?
I have patiently been waiting on shipping ..here for days now ...
Where the hell is my beer ???
That's just not right
Yes, duv measurements can vary based on variables such as current and angle. However, the point I am trying to make is that duv calculations based on the Opple’s data are not very accurate to the light that is hitting its sensor. A spectrometer like the Sekonic or Hopoocolor will display variability, but will at least give you an accurate reading of the incident light.
If you place a spectrometer and the Opple in the exact same position in a carefully controlled environment, the Opple’s data (particularly duv calculations) will be quite inaccurate when compared with the spectrometer. It simply was not designed for these kinds of quantitative measurements.
Here are two sw30 LEDs, note Opple reads them about 0.0029 apart
here are two sw45k, note the Opple reads them about 0.0021 apart:
.
Here are two sw35 LEDs in lights I own and compare using the same Opple
you can see the LEDs vary by about 0.0019
Here are some of my 4500k 219b:
note they vary…
bear in mind this is LED variation, it is not the variation between an Opple and a Sekonic
So, for me, the Opple is very useful, even though it is not as accurate as a Sekonic.
IF somebody posts Sekonic data for their LED, MY LED is probably not going to be identical.
So to me, it is more useful to use my Opple to compare MY LEDs, that it is to rely on Sekonic data that someone else posted online.
As a matter of fact, ANY data posted online, from Any measuring tool, is just a reference. Since LEDs vary, it would be unrealistic to rely on Online Data, and expect my own LEDs to be the same.
otoh, the Opple is very useful for me to compare my LEDs to each other.
You are describing a qualitative comparison, and in that regard, the Opple would work perfectly fine for those kinds of comparisons. However, the actual numerical duv values you are seeing won’t be very accurate.
I understand your commentl, and I agree. However, there is a lack of relevance of “accurate” measurements, due to LED variation. If people expect to look at Sekonic data online, hoping it will be true for their LED at home, they have UnRealistic Expectations.
here is maukkas measurement of one of his sw45k:
.
that –0.0055 DUV is probably very accurate for HIS specific LED, but it is NOT realistic to expect any of MY sw45k LEDs to match his…
the idea that one can post Sekonic data to the internet (even though it is “accurate”), creates an UnRealistic Expectation, for comparing other sw45k LEDs. Because LEDs vary, by amounts that are as large as the difference between the Opple and the Sekonic, when measuring the exact same LED.
Same is true for Beam shots intended to show Tint and CCT. Trying to compare the Tint of an LED at my house, to the Tint of another LED at your house, is UnRealistic. otoh, I find it very useful to compare the tint and CCT of my own lights to each other… The Opple provides me with additional info, for my own comparisons.
for example:
.
though that photo gives ME information about MY LEDs, it will Not look the same if you compare Your LED photos, and DUV measurements to Mine.
similar differences exist between your Lumen measurements and Mine:
.
it would be UnRealistic to think that my Lumen values will be the same as yours, even IF I mail you my lights
bottom line is I use Opple, and my Light meter to compare MY lights to each other. It gives me additional information, but it is not intended to predict that Your lights will have the same CCT, DUV nor Lumens, as mine, because, not only do our instruments differ, so do our LEDs and Hosts.