Aputure Launches LS 600x Pro: An Incredibly Powerful Continuous LED

Aputure has made a name for itself for creating some of the best lighting on the market, all without putting the price out of reach of many photographers and videographers. Now they have launched their newest LS-range lamp head with staggering maximum power.

When Aputure launched the LS 600d Pro, I was incredibly impressed with what it could do. With the F10 Fresnel, it could output 29,300 Lux at just shy of 10 feet, all while having dual battery plates, built-in Bluetooth app control, wireless transmitters, dust and rain resistance, and a Bowens mount. This sort of light is outstanding for both photo and video, but would typically cost thousands and thousands. The LS 600d Pro is $1,890, which might be an indication as to why it's still on back-order with B&H.

The LS 600d did have a drawback, however, which prohibited it from being useful for some shoots and some photographers and videographers: the "d", which stands for daylight. That is, it is set to 5,600K and that isn't alterable. This is fine in most instances, but for more creative lighting setups, it could be limiting. Aputure has now announced the LS 600x Pro which boasts many of the positives of its older brother, but with temperature control ranging from 2,700K through to 6,500K, making it more versatile. While you do sacrifice some maximum Lux output for that, it is still significantly brighter than the LS 300x, Aputure's other bi-color model of LED light.

In addition to this new light comes the Light Dome 150 Softbox, an enormous, 32-sided, 5-foot Bowens fit modifier. Because as we all know, the bigger the modifier, the better!

Log in or register to post comments

12 Comments

J.d. Davis's picture

I wonder how many Mole lights can be retrofitted with Home Depot LED work light innards for 1900 bucks?

LIGHT IS LIGHT

Marc F's picture

Ya, but be careful to choose LED bulbs that have a CRI (Colour Rendering Index) of at least 90. CRI is rarely mentioned on the packaging (when bad). First generation LED bulbs lack of deep red and blue-green but newer one are OK. I have seen 16 Watts (100 watts equivalent) 1,600 lumens CRI 90 LED bulbs sold at “Dollar shop” for $3.00 each. But you still have to buy the sockets and wire them…

J.d. Davis's picture

True!

Alex Herbert's picture

It's more complex than that, the number of LED continuous lights on the market that still aren't colour accurate is astounding. The colour balance can shift at different intensities and you can get weird colour fringing. Also CRI is just an average, the LED could still have noticeable colour spikes. And general CRI doesn't even cover the whole spectrum, you'd need LEDs that have their extended CRI listed.

If you're really after accurate light, it's easier to just buy a light made for purpose.

Marc F's picture

You are right. The power must be stabilized, the temperature controlled, etc… It’s a lot easier to “just buy a light made for purpose”… if you have the 1,900 bucks…
For me unfortunately, I have to build all things from scratch. That means that I would have to make my own stabilized power supply with components taken from scavenged old TV…

Tom Reichner's picture

I'm interested in how this would work for wildlife photography in remote wilderness locations.

Does anyone know offhand if this light runs off of a light, portable battery? Or does it need to be plugged in to an electrical outlet?

Garrett Reid's picture

If you consider v-mount/gold mount batteries “light” then yes.

Tom Reichner's picture

I have never heard of these batteries of which you speak. For my purposes, any battery that can fit into a brown paper lunch bag and weighs 6 pounds or less would be light and small enough to pack into the backcountry. I'd just want to know for sure that the battery and the light are the only two items I need, and that there aren't any cables or adaptors that I would have to have to get it working. I like simple, not complex.

Garrett Reid's picture

Most likely this is not the light for you. There will be two cables (one cable if your running off batts). The light. And the ballast. Add the batteries and your probably looking at around 40 lbs just for one light.

Tom Reichner's picture

Oh my goodness!

The usefulness of such a light seems like it would be very very limited. It seems that the only photographers who could make practical use of such a light are those who photograph in or near very man-made environments, such as indoors or near buildings with electrical outlets.

For the millions upon millions of photographers who photograph in the great outdoors, out in natural settings away from civilization, I just don't see how such a light would be very practical to use at all.

Garrett Reid's picture

You’re right. That’s why it’s a video light and not a photography strobe…
And for that matter if you’re such a “natural settings” purist why are you interested in an artificial light at all?

Tom Reichner's picture

In some situations, at some times and with certain subjects, I prefer natural settings - a.k.a. "in situ" types of photography.

But in other types of situations, with other subjects at other times in other places, I would prefer to stray from using ambient light and use a combination of ambient and artificial light. But I have found that for distant wild animals, one needs A LOT of light to make a difference - like way more than a flash and a Better Beamer can do.

I would love to light up a whole part of the forest so that a deer and all of the vegetation around it are illuminated and brightened to create an entirely different type of image than one could ever get with the ambient light.

At times I would like to photograph animals in natural settings, but with unnatural light. The light is not necessarily part of the setting. Setting refers to the physical objects immediately surrounding the subject(s). So a setting can be completely natural while the light that is illuminating the setting can be completely introduced.

I currently use flash and reflectors for some of my wildlife photography, but I would prefer to use a steady light source instead of a flash, so that I can better and more immediately see the effect that is obtained when using the light at various distances and sundry positions and angles. I have some little steady lights that I can plug into the hot shoe on my camera, but they only work well when the subjects are extremely close to me.

I would love a very light, very portable, steady light that works that way but that is like 10,000 times brighter than the steady lights I currently use. Lighting up an entire section of the forest would be so much better than just lighting up one little spot just 5 or 6 feet in front of me (obviously).