The Official Zebralight Thread .

[WalkIntoTheLight]

I can't take you for a walk in the woods with me to simply show you the difference between a 70 CRI and 95 CRI light, but if you have already done this yourself and you don't see any difference something is wrong with your eyes.
It is clearly visible.

+1. I love the high CRI H600Fc IV for hikes. It makes all the subtle brown tones in a forest, pop. I used to use cool-white before better tints became available, but it's really awful when I compare side-by-side. Cool white is fine indoors or around a colorless concrete landscape, but in a forest it's really bad.

 

[ktsl]

I can't take you for a walk in the woods with me to simply show you the difference between a 70 CRI and 95 CRI light, but if you have already done this yourself and you don't see any difference something is wrong with your eyes.
It is clearly visible.

You misunderstood my point. Of course there are differences if you put them side my side. But, if you use 70 cri light by itself, it wouldn't cause you any trouble telling things apart in the field. Like I said, before this era of high-cri lights, people never complained about not being able to tell things apart. They just complain about the tint.

 

[Connor]

I would argue that a high CRI light would help about anyone to "tell things apart" more easily/quickly. Especially in the woods a low CRI light turns everything into blue-green-grey slurry because of the missing red spectrum.

 

[Derek Dean]

Like I said, before this era of high-cri lights, people never complained about not being able to tell things apart.

First, we didn't complain for the last 100 years because incandescent lights, with a typical color temperature of 2700, have a CRI of 100%, so everything looked great.

Then, when LED lights first appeared, we didn't complain because we were simply happy to have an LED light that put out 100 lumens with 2 levels.

But once LED light technology began to mature, and many lights were able to put out more light than needed by their users, with much greater efficiency, we began to focus not only on the quantity of light, but also on the quality of that light. It's simply the natural progression that we see with any new technology.

To put it simply, we didn't complain about the low CRI of those early LED lights, because we were so enamored of the new technology that we were willing to put up with a beam that maybe didn't render as well as the old incandescent lights, but in return promised so much more, such as a light source that didn't burn out after 50-100 hours.

Of course, we all have different priorities, and some folks simply don't see any real benefit to high CRI lights, and that's fine, it's not really a matter of right or wrong, it's just a personal preference.

 

[Keitho]

Yes, what DD said. A 20 second search finds evidence that in 2005, people were certainly complaining about LED color http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?92415-What-s-the-benefit-of-incandescent-over-LED. Its obvious from the snark in that thread that it was an old debate in 2005, back when Star Wars episode III was the third worst thing to have happened to Star Wars, Foo Fighters was relevant, and Bush Jr was adamant that global warming is fiction...

 

[ktsl]

Yes, what DD said. A 20 second search finds evidence that in 2005, people were certainly complaining about LED color http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?92415-What-s-the-benefit-of-incandescent-over-LED. Its obvious from the snark in that thread that it was an old debate in 2005, back when Star Wars episode III was the third worst thing to have happened to Star Wars, Foo Fighters was relevant, and Bush Jr was adamant that global warming is fiction...

This is exactly what I said, people complained about the tint (i.e. color).

 

[ktsl]

But once LED light technology began to mature, and many lights were able to put out more light than needed by their users, with much greater efficiency, we began to focus not only on the quantity of light, but also on the quality of that light. It's simply the natural progression that we see with any new technology.

To put it simply, we didn't complain about the low CRI of those early LED lights, because we were so enamored of the new technology that we were willing to put up with a beam that maybe didn't render as well as the old incandescent lights, but in return promised so much more, such as a light source that didn't burn out after 50-100 hours.

Of course, we all have different priorities, and some folks simply don't see any real benefit to high CRI lights, and that's fine, it's not really a matter of right or wrong, it's just a personal preference.

Well, people certainly complained about the color a lot. But no so much on not being able to tell things apart. If people were too happy to have LED to complain about the latter, why would they complain about the former? In my opinion it's because the latter not so much a problem.

I myself hated early <70cri lights, mostly for the color. Nowadays, ~80 cri 4500k or 5000k works very well (e.g. sc600 Mk III HI). I am doubtful if >90 cri is really that necessary. I have several 219b, they look great. At the same time, sc5c can have a green tint with >90 cri . Anyone complain that sc600 III Hi have problems telling things apart?

 

[WalkIntoTheLight]

There's no doubt, that for people with normal vision, high CRI is a huge benefit to seeing things, especially in a forest. If you don't believe me, just try it for yourself. I'm sure there are exceptions: people with color-blindness, etc.

Maybe we don't absolutely need high CRI. Sure, the 75 or 80 CRI of a standard neutral-white LED still looks pretty good (such as the SC600w or SC64w), especially compared to ugly 65 CRI cool white. And, yeah, if we had nothing better, cool white would still do the job. But that's a bit like saying we could live by just eating plain potatoes for the rest of our lives. We might be able to do it, but why would anyone want to when there's so many better options?

 

[Fireclaw18]

The value of high-CRI also depends on the use.

I walk outside with my high-CRI light and want to see something 500 feet away, I see nothing. It's not bright enough and doesn't throw far enough.

Do the same with a similar light with XPL HI and I can clearly see what I'm looking at.

 

[WalkIntoTheLight]

The value of high-CRI also depends on the use.

I walk outside with my high-CRI light and want to see something 500 feet away, I see nothing. It's not bright enough and doesn't throw far enough.

Do the same with a similar light with XPL HI and I can clearly see what I'm looking at.

That has nothing to do with CRI. I can see further with my SC600w IV HI than I can with my SC600w IV Plus, even though the Plus is brighter and has the same tint and CRI. The reason is obvious.

We're talking about similar beam profiles and similar lux on the target when we're comparing high CRI and low CRI.

 

[Swedpat]

I have clearly seen the difference between a low and high CRI light. Low CRI in the woods washes out the colors so brown and green look almost the same. Also blue and purple look very similar. And in my experience it's not required to have high CRI like nichia 219 to make a big difference. Mostoften warm tint at all is superior to cool tint.

 

[Buck91]

Does anybody have the LED specs for the XHP35 ZL used in the SC63W? Zeroair's review has it listed as a 4500k with unknown CRI but mine looks a bit warmer to my eyes. Hard to get a good read on CRI by eyeball but I'm thinking 80-85, can anybody confirm?

 

[Seattle Sparky]

High CRI is important to me in some cases, in particular when I am at work and dealing with color coded wires. On some wires colors, due to manufacturing or due degrading of insulation ,would be hard to distinguish even with high CRI illumination, and close to impossible without hcri. For that purpose my zebra headlamp is hcri, with hcri HDS back up, and cool white malkoff e2xtd when I need to see things way out there, cri is not important for that.
Below photo taken without flash, but with H604c 4000k XHP50.2 , in 1600 lumen mode.

[/IMG]

[/IMG]

 

[Mr. LED]

Does anybody have the LED specs for the XHP35 ZL used in the SC63W? Zeroair's review has it listed as a 4500k with unknown CRI but mine looks a bit warmer to my eyes. Hard to get a good read on CRI by eyeball but I'm thinking 80-85, can anybody confirm?

Zebralight rates it at 80+ CRI, so I think you're spot on.

 

[Bob_McBob]

There's no doubt, that for people with normal vision, high CRI is a huge benefit to seeing things, especially in a forest. If you don't believe me, just try it for yourself. I'm sure there are exceptions: people with color-blindness, etc.

Maybe we don't absolutely need high CRI. Sure, the 75 or 80 CRI of a standard neutral-white LED still looks pretty good (such as the SC600w or SC64w), especially compared to ugly 65 CRI cool white. And, yeah, if we had nothing better, cool white would still do the job. But that's a bit like saying we could live by just eating plain potatoes for the rest of our lives. We might be able to do it, but why would anyone want to when there's so many better options?

It's hard to believe anyone can walk in a natural setting at night and not notice the difference between high CRI and low CRI lights. CRI 80 is more acceptable than CRI 70, but both make everything look dull and lifeless and blend together compared to R9050 or especially R9080 with the improved red rendering. Every light I carry is high CRI, but my car has low CRI LED headlights, and it's quite frustrating how dead everything looks and how much harder it is to distinguish some road markings compared to tungsten-halogen or daylight. And there's no upgrade path because they come as sealed units that cost a fortune.

I understand many people just want to have a lot of lumens or a lot of throw and don't really care what it looks like, but I feel like most who claim CRI doesn't matter haven't really compared lights in a meaningful way. It's not the dark ages of LED flashlights where anything is acceptable as long as it has reasonable output. There are many high CRI offerings, and many more if you're willing to learn.

 

[ktsl]

I have clearly seen the difference between a low and high CRI light. Low CRI in the woods washes out the colors so brown and green look almost the same. Also blue and purple look very similar. And in my experience it's not required to have high CRI like nichia 219 to make a big difference. Mostoften warm tint at all is superior to cool tint.

It's interesting to notice most people seems to be walking in the green woods? Most of my camping trips are into dry woods, I try to avoid camping in wet conditions. Now everything is brown anyways, and <4000k just make it worse for me. Maybe this is why our reference points are different. I'd pick 5000k 80cri over 4000k 90cri any day, but again this is just my personal preference.

 

[Robot Mania FU]

I myself hated early <70cri lights, mostly for the color. Nowadays, ~80 cri 4500k or 5000k works very well (e.g. sc600 Mk III HI). I am doubtful if >90 cri is really that necessary. I have several 219b, they look great. At the same time, sc5c can have a green tint with >90 cri . Anyone complain that sc600 III Hi have problems telling things apart?

You're right, of course it's not necessary. For years, I've carried an sc32w daily and thought it had a great tint. To me, it was perfect. I couldn't care less about high cri. My most recent zebralight purchase was an h600fc. I bought it because I thought a 4000k high cri headlamp would help me distinguish colors and contrasts while out fishing at night. It definitely does, but no it's not necessary. However, I liked it so much that I find myself carrying it as my daily light. To me, high cri seems like one of those things that you miss when you no longer have it.

I may be in the minority here because I know people praise high cri while out in the woods or the field or specifically in my case, night fishing (which is why I bought one in the first place).....but that is where I feel I can get by with any light to be honest. Where I found I missed having high cri was in the light that I carried and used for daily tasks.

 

[WalkIntoTheLight]

You're right, of course it's not necessary. For years, I've carried an sc32w daily and thought it had a great tint. To me, it was perfect. I couldn't care less about high cri. My most recent zebralight purchase was an h600fc. I bought it because I thought a 4000k high cri headlamp would help me distinguish colors and contrasts while out fishing at night. It definitely does, but no it's not necessary. However, I liked it so much that I find myself carrying it as my daily light. To me, high cri seems like one of those things that you miss when you no longer have it.

Yeah, the H600Fc has really nice tint. I was very happy with the SC64w HI and SC600w HI tints, until I tried the H600Fc.

 

[NPL]

It's hard to believe anyone can walk in a natural setting at night and not notice the difference between high CRI and low CRI lights. CRI 80 is more acceptable than CRI 70, but both make everything look dull and lifeless and blend together compared to R9050 or especially R9080 with the improved red rendering. Every light I carry is high CRI, but my car has low CRI LED headlights, and it's quite frustrating how dead everything looks and how much harder it is to distinguish some road markings compared to tungsten-halogen or daylight. And there's no upgrade path because they come as sealed units that cost a fortune.

I understand many people just want to have a lot of lumens or a lot of throw and don't really care what it looks like, but I feel like most who claim CRI doesn't matter haven't really compared lights in a meaningful way. It's not the dark ages of LED flashlights where anything is acceptable as long as it has reasonable output. There are many high CRI offerings, and many more if you're willing to learn.

I agree 100%. 80cri is better than 70, but the main missing element in 70 and 80 CRI LEDs is the non existent R9 Red value. That's why 9050 and 9080 make a significant difference in color rendering, because you get an R9 value closer to 50 or higher. If you had an LED that rendered to 100cri, but had an R9 value of zero, it would still be crap. I too find that distinguishing anything is easier with 90cri light vs a marginally brighter 70cri equivalent.

Sent from my Pixel using Candlepowerforums mobile app

 

[ktsl]

You're right, of course it's not necessary. For years, I've carried an sc32w daily and thought it had a great tint. To me, it was perfect. I couldn't care less about high cri. My most recent zebralight purchase was an h600fc. I bought it because I thought a 4000k high cri headlamp would help me distinguish colors and contrasts while out fishing at night. It definitely does, but no it's not necessary. However, I liked it so much that I find myself carrying it as my daily light. To me, high cri seems like one of those things that you miss when you no longer have it.

I may be in the minority here because I know people praise high cri while out in the woods or the field or specifically in my case, night fishing (which is why I bought one in the first place).....but that is where I feel I can get by with any light to be honest. Where I found I missed having high cri was in the light that I carried and used for daily tasks.

I have sc32w as well. Such a great tool. Mine has a tint that's a bit too yellow, other than that it's perfect.

Enthusiasts will create scenarios that are so convincing to themselves. But try explaining high-cri to your non-flashlight hiking buddy. Even better, imagine explaining that to Alex Honnold, or Bill Gates, or Justin Beiber. Imagine the look on their faces.

I was one of those who felt my eyes just opened when I came across the high-cri leds. After several camping and hiking trips, honestly, it doesn't matter...