In this unpaid review, we have LED grow lights
from that "1000" category. Spider Farmer, Maxsisun and Mars Hydro. Sorry, ViparSpectra didn't make
this review and I'll tell you why in a bit. First though: a quick outline of this video. This is both a review and also an audit of
several lights and manufacturers.
I selected four well known companies
and asked for reports on their lights. Some bold efficiency claims. But did they have
data to back it up? I only reviewed companies with Integrating Sphere test reports, showing the
PPF. An Integrating Sphere captures and measures all of the photons emitted from a light source.
This let’s you determine brightness, efficacy and more. Without that data, how can a seller
accurately market the efficacy of their lights?
ViparSpectra made some big claims. 2.9
efficiency? Hmm. But when I asked for reports, they didn’t have them. Mars Hydro wasn't much
better, but I was able to get one. Fortunately, I got more useful data from Spider Farmer and
Maxsisun. I have two lights from each company. A budget version as well as a premium one.
Mostly
we’re talking about 100 watt LEDs. These are entry level lights, great for seed starting, growing
greens or maybe a single medicinal plant.
Let’s start by reviewing their Integrating Sphere
test reports. These reports are crucial for separating legitimate sellers from LED scammers
(like the ones on Alibaba). First, Mars Hydro told me when their customers ask for testing reports,
they will send them. I asked for one, for their TS600, but they would NOT send me one. They did
send me this 2 year old report for the TS1000.
We see the spectrum chart. With far red or IR
diodes, right here we should see a bump. But there's none. This is an older version before
adding far red.
Next: the total light output. We have lumens here, but growers should focus on
this: The PPF. The Photosynthetic Photon Flux in micromoles per second. That's all PAR photons,
between 400 and 700 nanometers. Down here: volts and amps. Next, the power in watts.
PPF and watts. The most crucial parameters. These allow you to determine the light's efficacy.
Take the PPF and divide by watts. This is the PPE the photosynthetic photon efficacy in
micromoles per joule. So for this light, it was 2. At the time, Mars Hydro marketed the
efficacy as 2.3. So they inflated it by 15%.
Not cool, right? These reports show
if a company is honest and legit, or if they're just throwing out numbers.
This
single report was all I got. I found Mars Hydro difficult to work with, having no interest
in correcting errors in their listings.
Next is Spider Farmer who started out saying
their PPE was 2.7. But then I saw "PPE 2.9". Really? Take a look at this
SF1000. The PPF should be about 250. And this test report backs that up. Nowhere
near 2.9 in efficacy. Not even 2.7. (Note that the SF4000 truly is 2.7). But NOT the SF1000.
Part of the confusion stemmed from diode efficacy vs luminaire efficacy. The efficacy
of the individual diodes, is always more than the end product. There are driver losses, and
things like this, which reduce that rating for the unit as a whole. To avoid confusion,
I'm glad to see Spider Farmer has tweaked their listings to show true efficacy.
Now compare this to the report on the right. This SF1000D only has a PPE of 2.
Much lower
than the number on the sticker. So I had to point this out. Fortunately they've corrected this.
They've been more cooperative than Mars Hydro at correcting such errors.
One last thing on these reports. See this PF value here? This is the power factor.
Good quality LEDs will be around .99. But this SF1000D has a low power factor coming in at
.69. In a commercial or industrial setting, this wouldn't be a good choice. For most home users
it's not so bad. But it's another thing to watch for as sellers may sweep it under the rug.
Finally: Maxsisun. When I contacted them, they were very forthcoming and had no problems
sending me up-to-date test reports. They had recently set up their own Integrating Sphere
for R&D and monitoring product quality.
I really like the Maxsisun reports as they show
even more data.
These 2 pages are for a single light, the PB1000. No devoted IR diodes. On the
left, you see some standard info, but not the PPF. That's where this Spectrum Test Report comes
in. Here’s the total PPF. Down here's the power. And the efficacy is already calculated, as we
can see the PPE right here. For the PB1000 it’s 2.1 if you round it. But Maxsisun originally
stated 2.7. Yeah, surprise surprise, right? But wait! I contacted them and in just a few days
their site was updated with accurate specs. And they went further, adding copies of their new test
reports to their site for all of us to see.
Maxsisun doesn't want to be deceitful. And it's
hard as many competitors couldn't care less. Often marketing is all that matters. So I have to
give Maxsisun much respect for being transparent and correcting errors so quickly. But
that’s why we need these test reports! If you care about light output and energy
efficiency, then ask to see them before buying.
Now let's look at Maxsisun's MF1000.
Just a little
more efficient than the previous and there's that little bump with that addition of Far Red.
So that's some data I collected to get you more accurate specs. But I took my own measurements
too. Specifically, the PPFD over a 5 foot area. We have charts at 12 and 18 inches. That’s from the
diodes to the sensor. Readings were taken with my Apogee SQ-520 Quantum Sensor. NO reflective sides,
so you can see exactly how the light spreads.
Now, let’s look at these lights. First up: Spider
Farmer’s SF1000. I first examined it at launch, before the dimmer box. It has the highest PPE
of all lights in this review. And at 100 watts, the highest PPF. It's a nice
light that serves me well. I already had this revised unit from a previous
video and it has about 1600 hours of run time, so keep that in mind when
looking at my PPFD readings.
The next three units were provided at no cost
for the purpose of testing and reviewing. Next, the SF1000D. What's the
"D" mean? Does it mean dimmer? Or no dimmer? No the SF1000 uses Samsung LM301B
didoes.
The 1000D uses 301Ds. This budget version doesn't have the dimmer. But it also doesn't
have a branded driver. So in other words, it's totally different than the SF1000.
It’s only 81% as efficient as the premium 1000. Add the total PPF is similarly lower. The
difference was clear as I took my PPFD readings. Just compare them at 12 inches. The average
PPFD was only 80% compared to the SF1000. Along with the low power factor, you
have a light that’s just not as good.
Next up: Maxsisun's PB1000, their stripped down,
no-nonsense model. An excellent entry level price. And an attractive, well-built light. Good water
protection. The power factor is excellent. Both of Maxsisun’s lights use Samsung 281B+ diodes. Not
as efficient as the 301Bs.
But still quite good. Here are my PPFD readings. Some good
numbers, better than the SF1000D. There’s no IR diode. That said, everything about it
looks balanced and well constructed.
Next is the fanciest light. The MF1000. The same
diodes as the PB1000 with the added Far Red. And the overall efficacy is a little better.
It has a reflector hood, a beefy heatsink, and daisy chain power. There's even this
remote which is how you dim the unit, through the touch of a button. It has an on
board power switch. Or just use the remote. These power cables though, are not designed
to withstand water so keep that in mind.
After measuring the PPFD, I saw some extra high
center readings.
This LED had the highest average PPFD of all of the 100 watt LEDs tested.
You get a more focused center reading.
Let's switch to Mars Hydro. The previous lights
were 100 watt units. So the logical comparison is the TS600. And this is the unit they didn't want
me to show you. They had NO test reports to back up the PPE 2.3 label on the product. Certainly,
they weren't going to supply me a sample but I found this alternate means for acquiring a grow
light. Something called… "Add To Cart"???
I had to estimate the efficacy
based on my PPFD readings. Clearly it’s NOT as high as they claim. Next to
the MF1000, there’s only 80% as much light. Same power and distance. Both have reflective hoods.
But this TS600 just falls flat.
The TS600 might be 1.8 but certainly no higher than 2 micromoles
per joule. No wonder Mars Hydro didn't want me to test it! A low power factor too. So certainly
it’s not good for production environments.
Finally, the TS1000. Unlike the others, this one
is 150 watts, which can cause confusion if you don't pay attention. Is it brighter? Well
of course! I mean, it uses 50 more watts. It might seem like cheating. But I decided to
include it anyway and I'll tell you why. True they call it “1000” but it's also priced comparably.
In fact it costs LESS than the SF1000.
The label states PPE 2.2.
Due to the outdated
test report, once again I had to estimate the PPE compared to other known models. The TS1000 was
using 46% more power. And compared to the MF1000 I saw about 46% more light. The efficacy must
be similar. At least 2.1, but perhaps it’s true to the label at 2.2.
A big warning though: They falsely claimed it was waterproof. It's not
even rated at IP65 standards. The driver block is, but the light has a weak spot: This barrel power
connector. The solder points are exposed and unprotected. Not waterproof. Hmm, wait did their
listing magically change overnight? I wonder what triggered them to update their graphic?
Lot's of details, but what's best and how should we compare them?
First: some misinformation and distractions to avoid. Mars Hydro still calls their TS600
a 600 watt light. Obviously it's not. Don't fall for false, overstated wattages. And no,
don't assume that those wattages are suitable replacements for HPS lights.
The TS1000 is
NOT a good replacement for a 1000W HPS.
Watch out for fake efficacy specs. If
a seller says 2.9 micromoles per joule. Look for the Total PPF and divide by the true
wattage. Does it match? Maybe it does. Great! Now look for a test report to verify they aren't
lying about their specs. Third party tests are ideal. But I’ll take what I can get.
Don't get distracted by super high center PPFD readings. That’s a marketing trick. PPFD
spot readings are not a replacement for Total PPF. And when you do look at PPFD readings
look for proper maps with lots of data points. Check the average PPFD. And if you
compare those specs to a different light, make sure everything matches. The coverage
area, the hanging height and whether this in in a tent (where there's side reflection).
Even, consistent coverage is ideal.
So for these lights… we can
compare: photon distribution. Higher center numbers might be good if you don't
have side reflection. Those hooded lights are nice for open benches as they reduce photon loss at
the edges. But we also want bright lights too, so higher average PPFD values are always good.
And of course those Total PPF values from our test reports are crucial for that comparison.
Obviously at 150 watts, the Mars Hydro TS1000 wins hands down with the highest light output.
Here’s
how each light stacks up. We have my real world PPFD readings. And then the Total PPF. Is it
fair to compare the TS1000 though? I mean 150 watts. No problem. I dimmed the TS1000 down to
100 watts and remeasured the PPFD. Look at how it compares to the others, even dimmed down!
But maybe you're most concerned about efficacy. The more hours you intend to run your
light, the more expensive your electricity, the more concerned you should be about it.
In this
regard, the Spider Farmer SF1000 takes the crown. With an efficacy of 2.5 micromoles per joule, you
get the most PAR photons for each watt consumed. At the low end of the scale we have the 1000D
and the TS600. If efficiency matters to you, stay away from those two models.
One thing that obviously matters is price. At the time of this review, the cheapest LED
is HALF the price of the most expensive one. Are the more expensive lights are worth it? An
objective way to assess that is by comparing the cost to the light output.
For bulbs at home we
have the lumens per dollar. Well for these, it’s the PPF per dollar, or micromoles per dollar.
We see the difference in total PAR photons of each light. And there's also quite a difference in
cost. By overlaying those we see which lights give the most bang for the buck. The original
SF1000 was only $140. Since then, it hasn't gotten brighter. But it has gotten more expensive. And
right now it's in the midst of a price spike. The MF1000 comes at a premium price too, considering
the amount of light. And so in that premium range, the TS1000 is the clear winner. A decent 150 watt
LED that’s priced LOWER than the 100 watt SF1000. In that budget price range, the SF1000D is not
so great. The TS600 does well, but I would say the PB1000 is the winner considering
its quality and higher light levels.
There are also subjective aspects to these
lights that you can't show in a graph. That's where your application and personal
preference come into play.
Do you want a finned heat sink for good heat dissipation? The MF1000
has you covered. The daisy chain power might sound nice. As well as that remote controller. It would
cut down on cable clutter. For a multi-unit setup, that might be exactly what you want.
The SF1000 is rated for the highest PPF at 100 watts. And out of all the other units,
it has the highest ratio of far red light. It offers some of the best water protection. And if
used year round, that high efficacy rating means you get the most light per watt. If you're seeing
a price above $160 think seriously before buying. I personally think $180 is just too much.
On the other hand, the TS1000 is the 2nd most expensive light in our line up. But it has much
more output running at the full 150 watts. The efficacy isn't the highest. But 2.2 is good. And
with that dimmer you could run it at 100 watts, while still having excellent light levels. To help
with heat dissipation, the driver block is easy to remove with plenty of cabling.
Remember
though, with that exposed power connector, it’s not waterproof. And with unbranded diodes, we
can't project their lifespan or lumen maintenance. And it makes it easy for Mars Hydro to change
the configuration without ever telling us. So who knows what they'll use on the next run?
Unlike the 1000, the TS600 just isn't impressive. No test reports, but it likely has the lowest
PPF and PPE. As a stripped down model it’s cheap, but it's also cheaply made, with a low power
factor. I see no reason to waste your money on it, unless you see it for… $80 or less.
Spider Farmer's SF1000D wasn’t much better. Besides missing the dimmer, its light
levels are much lower than the SF1000. Different diodes and very different driver leave
much to be desired. If you're on a tight budget it might be an ok option at $90.
But for just 10 dollars more, the PB1000 is the clear winner. Maxsisun has
built a solid, affordable product. The Samsung diodes are a little less efficient than 301Bs.
But it still has the best efficacy at the $100 range. It's missing devoted IR diodes, but
compared to the other budget lights, the spectral difference is minimal. The light has better water
protection though. It has an excellent power factor. And although it doesn't have a dimmer box,
technically you could dim it if you wanted.
When you choose a product, you're also selecting
a brand. Out of the four companies I contacted, how does each stack up? Mars Hydro was
the least helpful. Yes, I got a report, but it was obsolete.
The TS600 had no data -just
inflated specs. Their unwillingness to correct errors and provide updated tests breeds distrust.
ViparSpectra has decent products, but initially, they couldn't produce tests to back their specs.
As this review entered production, I finally got a test report. A step in the right direction! But it
proved they had inflated their PPE. Fortunately, they’ve told me they intend to fix their data,
so I hope I can recommend them in the future. Spider Farmer was more reliable in this regard.
They do actively test their products.
Some of their specs were off, but they responded, fixing
them. Maxsisun’s products are well designed. And they've been proactive in acquiring an Integrating
Sphere. They were fast in fixing their numbers, being the 1st company to do so. And that takes
courage as everyone else pushes fake numbers.
My goal is to get ALL of these companies to
provide honest specs. Nobody likes to be tricked or lied to. I think I’ve managed to make a dent,
getting things moving in the right direction. You can do your part by holding sellers to
a higher standard and asking for those test reports! And if you’re a reviewer, push for
test reports. Don’t compromise no matter how many free lights get dangled in front of you!
Looking at the actual lights in today’s review, the 4 that I recommend are the SF, PB, MF
& TS 1000.
Each has distinct advantages and any one of them might work for you. But, price
is a real factor. If you see inflated prices, it might be worth selecting an alternative.
Or just wait until prices come back down.
Hopefully this info has given you some objective
data to help in selecting your grow light. Please check the description for links. And you can
support my channel by liking and subscribing. I hope you have a great growing season &
I'd like to wish you Happy Gardening!
Hello! Yes, I was calling about my past-due
electric bill. Would you accept an LED grow light as payment? Maybe gimme
a partial credit or something? >No.
You'll have to pay with real
money like everyone else.< I see..
