New H53c AA Headlamp Neutral White High CRI!

[mellowman]

that may just be pre-order price with price going up $6 after launch.

 

[lampeDépêche]

"But, but, I can't fit into this tiny head!"

"Hey, that's no fair--I can't produce that much amperage!"

"More and more magnetic flux--I'm saturated! I can't take it!"

(Don't you hate listening to inductors whine?)

 

[mellowman]

"But, but, I can't fit into this tiny head!"

"Hey, that's no fair--I can't produce that much amperage!"

"More and more magnetic flux--I'm saturated! I can't take it!"

(Don't you hate listening to inductors whine?)

the new led XP-L2 has lower forward voltage and current to achieve the same lumens than the previous gens XM-L2.

 

[iamlucky13]

(Don't you hate listening to inductors whine?)

:laughing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8sWGMdGMoE

 

[ma tumba]

I am skipping this for I so much prefer pure flood in headlamps. Could complain, too, about lumens, no 14500 support but the deal breaker is the beam type. Still have and use older version of H502d (170lm ?), would love to see higher cri version with the new UI

EDIT: actually, on my old H502d, medium is also set from off by a double click, just like the new UI. So in this regards the new UI is a good old one.

 

[gunga]

I've really come to appreciate high cri, and slightly warmer tints. This headlamp will be definitely on my list.

 

[lampeDépêche]

I've really come to appreciate high cri, and slightly warmer tints. This headlamp will be definitely on my list.

Hey, don't get me wrong: I have already pre-ordered one.

The high cri, tint, and new programmable UI are all enough to get me interested. And I hope that they'll put out an H503 line of pure mules, as well.

My only disappointment is about the H1 output level.

This light will not replace my H52w as the indispensable EDC, if it lacks the capacity to put out 500 lumens now and then when needed.

 

[Genzod]

Interesting. Yeah, you might be right. (Hope you're wrong).

And I think that an H1 of 285 or so would be an absolute catastrophe for the SC62 upgrade [eta: sorry, meant SC52]. It's one thing to say that we don't need huge outputs in a headlamp. But in a regular flashlight configuration, a single-AA model that tops out at 285 is going to be dead in the water. That's so far from the cutting edge that it cannot even see the spine of the blade.

I noticed the spot of the H52 is 12 degrees compared to that of the H53 which is 10 degrees. Wouldn't that put the intensity of the consistent 285 lumens of the H53c very close to the intensity of the former 500 lm boost level (maybe within 10%)? I'd appreciate any intelligent comments about this.

(I'm not a light expert, so be gentle!)

 

[iamlucky13]

Welcome to the forums Genzod!

That's an interesting point, although I'm not sure if Zebralight uses a consistent means of measuring their hotspot width - in most industries, lighting intensity falloff is marked at full width at half maximum is used, but a lot of people just eyeball apparent beam widths. One of their competitors, Armytek, I'm fairly certain does not use a consistent measure - I've seen beamshots of clearly different patterns between different Armytek models where they list the same beam width spec.

Also, the amount of light that falls within the hotspot compared to in the flood can affect the hotspot intensity, too. I don't think we can infer too much simply from the hotspot width spec.

It also would not affect those of us who prefer the floody beam versions.

 

[Genzod]

Welcome to the forums Genzod!

That's an interesting point, although I'm not sure if Zebralight uses a consistent means of measuring their hotspot width - in most industries, lighting intensity falloff is marked at full width at half maximum is used, but a lot of people just eyeball apparent beam widths. One of their competitors, Armytek, I'm fairly certain does not use a consistent measure - I've seen beamshots of clearly different patterns between different Armytek models where they list the same beam width spec.

Also, the amount of light that falls within the hotspot compared to in the flood can affect the hotspot intensity, too. I don't think we can infer too much simply from the hotspot width spec.

It also would not affect those of us who prefer the floody beam versions.

I guess the intensity spec (cd) might prove useful to compare versions at max output then. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that ZL provides that information.

 

[lampeDépêche]

I noticed the spot of the H52 is 12 degrees compared to that of the H53 which is 10 degrees. Wouldn't that put the intensity of the consistent 285 lumens of the H53c very close to the intensity of the former 500 lm boost level (maybe within 10%)?

I'll take a crack at thinking this through, although I'm no expert, either. Feel free to correct me for my blunders.

Let's say you took all of the illumination that one light puts into a 12-degree beam, and then focus it a bit more so that it puts the same amount into a 10-degree beam.

How much more intense will it be?

Suppose you shine a 12-degree beam and a 10-degree beam on the same flat wall, from the same distance. What is the difference in the area covered?

The ratio of sin(6 degrees) to sin(5 degrees) is about 1.2: the radius of the larger circle will be about 6/5 the radius of the smaller circle. Squaring that for area, you can see that the larger circle covers about 1.44 times the area of the smaller circle.

So if the smaller beam concentrates all of the lumens from the larger beam, it will have a light-density (lumens per area) that is 1.44 higher. Lumens per area is what lux measures, so its lux figure will be 1.44 times greater. 1.44 x 285 = 410, so the light with 285 lumens in a 10-degree hotspot has the same intensity as the light with 410 lumens in a 12-degree hotspot.

How does this apply to the two ZL lights? Well, if we make a *lot* of simplifying assumptions about beam shape, diffusion, light-density across different regions, and so on, then it suggests that the hot-spot of the H53 will be about 80% of the brightness (intensity, lux) of the hot-spot of the old H52.

That's the good news. The bad news is that it covers only 2/3s of the same area (it's a smaller spot), and it generally puts out only half the light.

Light intensity isn't everything. There's a reason that most of us care more about lumens than about lux. Especially in a general-purpose, non-thrower light like the ZLs--no one is going to buy a Zebralight for its lux figures.

So although you are not wrong when you say that "the intensity...of the H53c" will be "very close to the intensity of the former 500 lm boost level", I think you are bit off in your 10% guess, and I also think that this point does not really address the concerns of those of us who care about total output.

 

[lonelyboy]

I am a bit confused about the new multiple group mode. How does it work?

 

[scs]

I am a bit confused about the new multiple group mode. How does it work?

each of the 3 mode groups can be configured to have its own combination of output levels.
you choose the mode group to use.
group 5 is the default chosen out of the box.
you can follow the instructions to change it to either group 6 or 7.
see instructions regarding the limitations of group 5 and the flexibility of the other 2.

 

[Genzod]

I'll take a crack at thinking this through, although I'm no expert, either. Feel free to correct me for my blunders.

Let's say you took all of the illumination that one light puts into a 12-degree beam, and then focus it a bit more so that it puts the same amount into a 10-degree beam.

How much more intense will it be?

Suppose you shine a 12-degree beam and a 10-degree beam on the same flat wall, from the same distance. What is the difference in the area covered?

The ratio of sin(6 degrees) to sin(5 degrees) is about 1.2: the radius of the larger circle will be about 6/5 the radius of the smaller circle. Squaring that for area, you can see that the larger circle covers about 1.44 times the area of the smaller circle.

So if the smaller beam concentrates all of the lumens from the larger beam, it will have a light-density (lumens per area) that is 1.44 higher. Lumens per area is what lux measures, so its lux figure will be 1.44 times greater. 1.44 x 285 = 410, so the light with 285 lumens in a 10-degree hotspot has the same intensity as the light with 410 lumens in a 12-degree hotspot.

How does this apply to the two ZL lights? Well, if we make a *lot* of simplifying assumptions about beam shape, diffusion, light-density across different regions, and so on, then it suggests that the hot-spot of the H53 will be about 80% of the brightness (intensity, lux) of the hot-spot of the old H52.

That's the good news. The bad news is that it covers only 2/3s of the same area (it's a smaller spot), and it generally puts out only half the light.

Light intensity isn't everything. There's a reason that most of us care more about lumens than about lux. Especially in a general-purpose, non-thrower light like the ZLs--no one is going to buy a Zebralight for its lux figures.

So although you are not wrong when you say that "the intensity...of the H53c" will be "very close to the intensity of the former 500 lm boost level", I think you are bit off in your 10% guess, and I also think that this point does not really address the concerns of those of us who care about total output.

I apologize for the errant 10% figure. I had worked an actual equation earlier and later submitted a rounded-off-by-memory figure, which wasn't intentional (some of us are just getting old :sigh. The intensities are 14526 and 11920 cd using the mathematical relationship between luminous power and luminous intensity, bringing intensities within 18% of each other (Luminous power gap is 43%, which now isn't exactly as bad as i thought).

It wasn't my purpose to dismiss those who are concerned about total output, or suggest that intensity is everything. In fact, I was with those here who have expressed their disappointment that the headlamp doesn't support the former boost level. I probably still am. It would have been a much better product I think. My actual intention was to suggest that all was not lost.

In my case, I was hoping The H53 would much like the new ZL AA handheld support a maximum output in the 450-500 range so I would have enough momentary light to check for trail blazes at a large distance. Finally seeing the max power was 285 lumens made my heart sink.

In studying the physics, I realized that perhaps all I really needed to effectively see that distant trail blaze was luminous intensity not necessarily luminous power. Size of the tree all at once, no, but tiny painted trail marker, yes.

So I worked the equation and realized the H53 could do the job of a 410 lm lamp with the old spill angle. I found that great to know, crossed my fingers that I had reasoned correctly and if correct, had hoped other's might find that fact reassuring.

Thanks for responding to my question for help and doing all that work to check me. I appreciate it. H53c is still on my options list! Sure wish it had an infinite rotary output selector though. Some of the headlamps I've seen that have them aren't exactly ZL's in quality, price or weight.

 

[Genzod]

Concerning the last comment I made, before a mob of experts jumps on me for the crime of *photonic blasphemy*, I do realize that all the power of the beams (H52 and H53) is not concentrated exclusively into the spot. That is why it was my original intention to state "maybe 18%" (even though I misstated it as "10%" in the original post.) The use of the equation was to make a ballpark comparison not an exacting calculation.

 

[lampeDépêche]

Yeah, Genzod, I think our numbers are pretty much in line. I said "80%", i.e. 20% lower, but that's pretty much the same as your 82% or 18% lower.

I just knocked off another significant digit because of all of the slop in the calculation, as well as the points you make about how much of the light is concentrated in the hotspot.

You mention an application in which throw does matter, namely spotting trail-blazes at a distance. And you are right, for that application the new one should be about as good as the old.

I just hate to move *backwards,* when everything else in LED land keeps moving *forwards*!

But like I said, I have pre-ordered this one already, and I will be excited to try it out and see how it works in the hand. Good tint and CRI can make up for quite a bit of difference in lumens.

 

[Genzod]

Yeah, Genzod, I think our numbers are pretty much in line. I said "80%", i.e. 20% lower, but that's pretty much the same as your 82% or 18% lower.

I just knocked off another significant digit because of all of the slop in the calculation, as well as the points you make about how much of the light is concentrated in the hotspot.

You mention an application in which throw does matter, namely spotting trail-blazes at a distance. And you are right, for that application the new one should be about as good as the old.

I just hate to move *backwards,* when everything else in LED land keeps moving *forwards*!

But like I said, I have pre-ordered this one already, and I will be excited to try it out and see how it works in the hand. Good tint and CRI can make up for quite a bit of difference in lumens.

I agree. It does seem like a step backward.

Remember though, ZL noted on their comparison spec sheet that this "new generation" headlamp is *brighter*. If the max power in the H53 is substantially lower than the boost of the H52, it would seem the only way to explain this conundrum is the intensity spec of the H53 trumps the H52.

The way we worked the 82/18% makes an assumption that you start with a given level of luminous power in the spot and then concentrating it from 12 to 10 degrees. If the H53 does have a higher intensity (in candela), that would require higher luminous power in the H53 spot before we mathematically concentrated it. Or our mistake is as the previous poster suggested, there is no way of knowing how consistent ZL is with their spot angles and making conjectures with them are pointless.

I guess someone with a hotline to ZL could ask them this question: What is the basis for saying on their comparison sheet the H53c is "brighter" than the previous generation? Or we could wait until May, and all you geniuses here can figure it all out. In the meantime. I think I'm just going to have to get busy and start pulling out all of my hair.

 

[mellowman]

you may be over thinking this as the listed light output specs are for eneloops so technically H53c is brighter comparing same bats by ~5 lumens vs H52w, if you ignore 14500 and again just compare both using an eneloop.

 

[Genzod]

I think maybe there's a reasonable answer to why the H53c is *brighter* than the H52w. 5 lumens brighter in the H1 slot (280 lm to 285 lm). Must be that simple.

When I went back to check this, I looked at the spot/spill angles again on the H52w and H53c. Now they both have 12 degree spot angles. I am certain I read 10 degrees, and the only place I could have read that was on the ZL product page, haha. I'm wondering if ZL read this thread and realized a typo error in their spot/spill specs?

I went to Google just now and searched "H53c AA Headlamp Neutral White High CRI" and looked at the angles in the CACHED page. Sure enough, there it is, 10 degrees! They DID change it.

 

[Genzod]

you may be over thinking this as the listed light output specs are for eneloops so technically H53c is brighter comparing same bats by ~5 lumens vs H52w, if you ignore 14500 and again just compare both using an eneloop.

Exactly. I just posted this exact theory while rechecking the product pages. Also note the products specs changed. I wasn't over thinking it. It was based on data that ZL changed while I wasn't looking.