# Do you really use 0.2 lumen?



## dealgrabber2002 (Aug 4, 2009)

I just received my D10 from one nice cpfer. I am very fond of the low low which is ~3 lumen. With 3 lumen I can still see, but not too good. Close up reading is perfect with 3 lumen... But I don't think I can use the .2 lumen provided by Quark or other flashlight with low low...

How many of you guys/gals use the .2 lumen? I don't think I can walk around the room/house with .2 lumen, can you?


----------



## Beacon of Light (Aug 4, 2009)

I love the low low on my Quark AA. I could still use it even if it was much lower.


----------



## FlashlightsNgear.com (Aug 4, 2009)

I havent seen .2 lumens, is it even visible lol. Can we get a beamshot or may I say a reflector shot since .2 lumen probley doesnt produce enough beam to take a beamshot. I cant wait to hear more on what this is used for.


----------



## Petersen (Aug 4, 2009)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> I just received my D10 from one nice cpfer. I am very fond of the low low which is ~3 lumen. With 3 lumen I can still see, but not too good. Close up reading is perfect with 3 lumen... But I don't think I can use the .2 lumen provided by Quark or other flashlight with low low...
> 
> How many of you guys/gals use the .2 lumen? I don't think I can walk around the room/house with .2 lumen, can you?


 
I primarely use the 0.08 setting on my Novatac, during nightly walks around the house, actually I would prefer an even lower, low.

- but I also live countryside, where it gets rather dark in the night, so you can barely see your own hand..


----------



## 1anrm (Aug 4, 2009)

I have both D10 and QuarkAA and yes I prefer .2 lumen for late night wake and going to the can. If I use my D10 it ruins my night vision. That's pretty much the only time I use .2 lumen of my Quark AA.


----------



## Dude Dudeson (Aug 4, 2009)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> I just received my D10 from one nice cpfer. I am very fond of the low low which is ~3 lumen. With 3 lumen I can still see, but not too good. Close up reading is perfect with 3 lumen... But I don't think I can use the .2 lumen provided by Quark or other flashlight with low low...
> 
> How many of you guys/gals use the .2 lumen? I don't think I can walk around the room/house with .2 lumen, can you?


 
In another lifetime I used light levels that low to see things within 12 inches of my face without giving away my position. It was not military service, but I imagine military guys might use such levels (for similar purposes) as well.


----------



## Marduke (Aug 4, 2009)

If you actually were in the dark and let your eyes adjust, .2 lumens is more than enough. 

Close yourself in a totally dark room with no light for 20 minutes. Then turn on your d10 and see how overly bright it can be, to the point of hurting.


----------



## jchoo (Aug 4, 2009)

+1 to what everyone else said - I used the lowest white level on my Twisty to easily navigate my house last night in complete darkness.


----------



## bcwang (Aug 4, 2009)

The 0.2 lumens is plenty of light for dark adjusted eyes. In fact, the next level up of 3.5 lumens seems too bright already for up close illumination. The fenix 11 lumen is blinding in comparison.

I'm glad for the 0.2 lumen light level, it also lets you look for stuff around the bed without disturbing your spouse. I have to plug in my phone next to my bed and can't find the cable and aim it without some light. Even using an original arc AAA was too bright ruining my night vision. The quark is perfect for this task.


----------



## Dude Dudeson (Aug 4, 2009)

Marduke said:


> If you actually were in the dark and let your eyes adjust, .2 lumens is more than enough.
> 
> Close yourself in a totally dark room with no light for 20 minutes. Then turn on your d10 and see how overly bright it can be, to the point of hurting.


 
That reminds me of a caving trip I once took - the guides got everyone together deep inside and turned out all lights for a minute or two, and one was talking about vision adaptation.

Then one of them lit a match.

The entire chamber was clearly visible - I'm talking about a "room" about 50x50x50 feet, and with dark walls!


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Aug 4, 2009)

I tried to use a toilet paper to cover the head to reduce the brightness, then I went blind! jk

By covering it, I can only see bout 5 - 10 inches in front of me... how can u navigate a room?

I know covering it with a paper is not exactly .2 lumen, but should be close enough right? Maybe whatever is left from the throw is gone.


----------



## gsxrac (Aug 4, 2009)

Marduke said:


> If you actually were in the dark and let your eyes adjust, .2 lumens is more than enough.
> 
> Close yourself in a totally dark room with no light for 20 minutes. Then turn on your d10 and see how overly bright it can be, to the point of hurting.




I was gonna post something but Marduke covered all the bases I was going for. I would say the low low on my Clicky is covers about 40% of my total flashlight use?


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Aug 4, 2009)

Marduke said:


> If you actually were in the dark and let your eyes adjust, .2 lumens is more than enough.
> 
> Close yourself in a totally dark room with no light for 20 minutes. Then turn on your d10 and see how overly bright it can be, to the point of hurting.


 
Maybe I should sit down in my dark bathroom for awhile then try the D10 with a toilet paper and see how well my eyes adapt to it.


----------



## kramer5150 (Aug 4, 2009)

Did someone mention beamshot? :thumbsup:







My lowest low on the left its a DIY P60 build I did using an XR-E-Q5, and a multi mode DC-DC board from DX. On the right for comparison is a stock MM solitaire, on a 50% depleted alkaline. With a fresh cell the MM solitaire is 3 Lumens, so I would venture a guess that my low-low DIY is around 1 Lumen, maybe a little less.

I find it plenty bright for navigating around the house with 100% night adapted vision.

My next brightest light is a Fenix E0, which at 6L is roughly half as bright as the newer E01. I find the E0 blinding in the middle of the night with night adapted vision.

My next brightest after that is an Inova X1-V2, which is around 12L (IIRC)... that is painful with fully adapted vision.


----------



## Marduke (Aug 4, 2009)

Dude Dudeson said:


> That reminds me of a caving trip I once took - the guides got everyone together deep inside and turned out all lights for a minute or two, and one was talking about vision adaptation.
> 
> Then one of them lit a match.
> 
> The entire chamber was clearly visible - I'm talking about a "room" about 50x50x50 feet, and with dark walls!



Also commonly called the birthday candle trick in boyscouts. 

Seems every cave trip I go on, we still turn out the lights at a rest for a bit. It's amazing how much the glow in the dark hands of a wristwatch can light up an area.


----------



## vali (Aug 4, 2009)

Yeah, its more than enough for a lot of tasks. I thought the 0.2 lumen would be even dimmer than it is. Today I got my warm quark and I think its great. I can walk in a wood's dark path with this kind of light.

Of course it has to be a really dark one. If you are used to the "dark" of a city then it will probably be too dim due light pollution, but in the countryside it is plenty of light.


----------



## divine (Aug 4, 2009)

Yeah, the quark 0.2 lumen is a little brighter than I would expect from 0.2 lumens, but it is much lower than I would expect from a light in its class. It is nice.

I use it.


----------



## Oddjob (Aug 4, 2009)

I find the 0.08 lumens on my Ra lights to be more than enough with dark adapted eyes. Used mine the other night during a movie to read something and not bother the people next to me.


----------



## lolzertank (Aug 4, 2009)

I don't know about 0.2 lumen, but my joule thief (about 1 lumen based on eyeball comparison with E01) is way too bright for fully dark adapted eyes.


----------



## Coop57 (Aug 4, 2009)

Yes I use the moonlight .02 on my AA Quark. Going to the bathroom, finding my way in a dark theater, lighting up an menu. I use the next higher setting "low" to read in bed at night. The .02 setting is very functional.


----------



## flatline (Aug 4, 2009)

I use the .2 lumen setting on my Quark AA to read by. The hot spot is still to bright, so I half cover the lens with my hand and read via the spill.

I'm considering getting a zerbralight for the pure flood beam. I hope it isn't too bright to read by.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Aug 4, 2009)

If it were pitch black I would probably use it.

My house has a fair amount of ambient light however, so it would be fairly useless to me at the present time.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Aug 4, 2009)

flatline said:


> I use the .2 lumen setting on my Quark AA to read by. The hot spot is still to bright, so I half cover the lens with my hand and read via the spill.


 
I agree about the hotspot on the .2 setting. I love the .2 moonmode on my Quark as I live in a rural setting and it gets dark unlike in a city. I could actually use a light more dim than that still with my dark adapted eyes. The Quark hotspot at .2 is enough to actually bother my eyes when it is pointed at something close in the middle of the night. The .2 setting was a large selling point for me on the Quark. Up until now the only light I could use in the middle of the night was my Mag Solitaire. My Fenix lights cause pain to my eyes on low.:green:


----------



## Bushman5 (Aug 4, 2009)

Marduke covered it perfectly! (dark adjusted eyes, etc) 

0.2 lumens is bright enough to light up a dark room if you turn it on after being asleep for some time (dark adjusted eyes). Its not so great in the woods except for close up work (map reading etc) or in areas of light poluttion.


----------



## SilentK (Aug 4, 2009)

I actually find that the .2 lumen is perfect for a nightlight. it is actually very bright when your eyes are adapted. it will light a room 15' by 15' no problem to the point where you can navigate with no trouble. last night, i left it on and it woke me up. i had to turn it off to go to sleep.


----------



## passive101 (Aug 4, 2009)

.2 lumen is perfect for me! I use it every night.


----------



## defloyd77 (Aug 4, 2009)

divine said:


> Yeah, the quark 0.2 lumen is a little brighter than I would expect from 0.2 lumens, but it is much lower than I would expect from a light in its class. It is nice.
> 
> I use it.



I totally agree with this. I was expecting something the same brightness as my Photon Rex on it's lowest mode, but it's a bit brighter. I used to use the Rex when walking around the house at night, but I would have to let my eyes adjust some as the Rex was extremely dim and was more of a diffuse light as it uses 4 5mm LED's. The .2 lumen low of the Quark however seems to be perfect for my uses, I like the tight hotspot and wide spill as I have to search for cats how just love to trip people in the dark. My eyes don't really need to do much adjusting to use the Quark, I can pretty much use it right away.


----------



## mbiraman (Aug 4, 2009)

Its my most used mode on my Quark AA. Late at night, sometimes outside etc,,,love it.


----------



## f22shift (Aug 4, 2009)

Dude Dudeson said:


> That reminds me of a caving trip I once took - the guides got everyone together deep inside and turned out all lights for a minute or two, and one was talking about vision adaptation.
> 
> Then one of them lit a match.
> 
> The entire chamber was clearly visible - I'm talking about a "room" about 50x50x50 feet, and with dark walls!


 
couple minutes to night adapt? that's pretty good.


i do use it for navigating in the house. i actually really don't need it with all the ambient lighting spilling in from out of the house but it feels cooler to do. :tinfoil:
i think it's also good to be inconspicuous.


----------



## brucec (Aug 4, 2009)

Blinded by 1 lumen? Man you guys are really afraid of a little light. Which I find weird seeing as we're all flashaholics. Yes, 1 lumen seems bright when you just wake up, but at least my eyes adjust pretty quickly. It's not an issue. Given no flashlight, I'll turn on the bathroom light. Yes it's bright and hurts for a second, but I'm tough enough to deal with it I guess. Seriously, how important is it to maintain your cave darkness vision when you're going back to bed in a minute anyway? Do you guys find it unreasonably bright to sleep in a tent under the moonlight? I suppose I understand why a really low low would be useful for the military, but personally, I find the idea of buying a flashlight based on the fact that it has the ability to put out nearly no light to be rather, um, amusing.


----------



## WadeF (Aug 4, 2009)

I love the 0.2 lumens on my Quark, and other ultra low lumen lights. It's perfect for navigating around the house without disrupting your night adapted eyes.

However, when I enter my bed room with the 0.2 lumens, the wife will still grown if she catches some of the flashlight's spill in her face. Maybe I need 0.05 lumens.


----------



## Marduke (Aug 4, 2009)

brucec said:


> Blinded by 1 lumen? Man you guys are really afraid of a little light. Which I find weird seeing as we're all flashaholics. Yes, 1 lumen seems bright when you just wake up, but at least my eyes adjust pretty quickly. It's not an issue. Given no flashlight, I'll turn on the bathroom light. Yes it's bright and hurts for a second, but I'm tough enough to deal with it I guess. Seriously, how important is it to maintain your cave darkness vision when you're going back to bed in a minute anyway? Do you guys find it unreasonably bright to sleep in a tent under the moonlight? I suppose I understand why a really low low would be useful for the military, but personally, I find the idea of buying a flashlight based on the fact that it has the ability to put out nearly no light to be rather, um, amusing.



Besides not hurting when the bright light first comes on, there are other VERY good reasons to still use VERY dim light.

1) Less disturbance to other sleeping in the room

2) You can go back to sleep MUCH faster


----------



## defloyd77 (Aug 4, 2009)

Marduke said:


> Besides not hurting when the bright light first comes on, there are other VERY good reasons to still use VERY dim light.
> 
> 1) Less disturbance to other sleeping in the room
> 
> 2) You can go back to sleep MUCH faster



Bingo! Especially number 2, I have insomnia like crazy, the last thing I need is more mental stimilation lol.


----------



## loanshark (Aug 4, 2009)

To the OP, if that D10 your using is the Q5 version it's probably closer to .5 lumen than 3... so .2 lumen should look about 30% less bright to your eye. Your eyes don't see changes in light intensities as linear. 

Add in the fact that the Quark throws better and you don't really notice much difference at all. I can see a bit of difference between the two, but not much. If you use your D10 on low, you will most likely use the moon mode on your new Quark...


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Aug 4, 2009)

loanshark said:


> To the OP, if that D10 your using is the Q5 version it's probably closer to .5 lumen than 3... so .2 lumen should look about 30% less bright to your eye. Your eyes don't see changes in light intensities as linear.
> 
> Add in the fact that the Quark throws better and you don't really notice much difference at all. I can see a bit of difference between the two, but not much. If you use your D10 on low, you will most likely use the moon mode on your new Quark...



Really??? I was thinking it might be close to 1.5-2 lumen... but close to .2???


----------



## Spypro (Aug 4, 2009)

I use the lowest setting on my RaClicky EDCE in the middle of the night, not to wake up my girlfriend or to do close work without being blinded by bright light.


----------



## Marduke (Aug 4, 2009)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> Really??? I was thinking it might be close to 1.5-2 lumen... but close to .2???



It is 2-5 depending on battery and individual variation. Definitely not less than one.


----------



## Theatre Booth Guy (Aug 4, 2009)

One of the reasons that I keep buying HDS / Ra lights is the option of setting the turn on to a very dim low - 0.07 lumen with 1.1 lumen only a double click away. When I wake up in the middle of the night, the 0.07 lumen is more than enough to light a room with ceiling bounce.

Not only is this easier on my eyes but also has no risk of waking my wife! The 1.1 lumen is great for when I'm turning off the lights and heading to bed after working the late shifts and my eyes have not adjusted yet.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Aug 4, 2009)

My D10 R2 is MUCH brighter compared to the Quark AA on moonlight mode. I like the D10 on low to illuminate my laptop keys at night. I could use my Quark or LF2XT as well I guess I just designated the D10 for that role.


----------



## loanshark (Aug 4, 2009)

Marduke said:


> It is 2-5 depending on battery and individual variation. Definitely not less than one.


 
I thought selfbuilts review showed ~.55 lumen. My D10 and My Quark look pretty close on low...


----------



## Marduke (Aug 4, 2009)

loanshark said:


> I thought selfbuilts review showed ~.55 lumen. My D10 and My Quark look pretty close on low...



On low, sure. But the Quark Moonlight mode is much dimmer.

Selfbuilt does not estimate lumens. His numbers are just comparative lightbox readings.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Aug 4, 2009)

Marduke said:


> On low, sure. But the Quark Moonlight mode is much dimmer.
> 
> Selfbuilt does not estimate lumens. His numbers are just comparative lightbox readings.




Marduke is right... Quark moonlight mode is much dimmer... It's different from low mode.


----------



## loanshark (Aug 4, 2009)

Sorry I meant to say moonlight mode. My two samples are very close to my eyes. I have a Q5 D10 from the pre-order.


----------



## Marduke (Aug 5, 2009)

loanshark said:


> Sorry I meant to say moonlight mode. My two samples are very close to my eyes. I have a Q5 D10 from the pre-order.



How does the low of the Quark compare to the D10 low?


----------



## loanshark (Aug 5, 2009)

The low on the Quark (second level) blows the D10 out of the water. It looks ~5 times brighter.


----------



## Marduke (Aug 5, 2009)

loanshark said:


> The low on the Quark (second level) blows the D10 out of the water. It looks ~5 times brighter.



One of your lights is not functioning correctly then. The Quark should be a glow on moon mode, the D10 should be 1/3-1/2 of about the E01 brightness.


----------



## loanshark (Aug 5, 2009)

Marduke said:


> One of your lights is not functioning correctly then. The Quark should be a glow on moon mode, the D10 should be 1/3-1/2 of about the E01 brightness.


 
Sounds like my D10 goes lower than most. Cool! If it keeps workin' I'll keep using it.

Could the emiter be dimming in only a year? It really doesn't seem dimmer... :tired: bed time:tired:
:wave:


----------



## kaichu dento (Aug 5, 2009)

brucec said:


> Blinded by 1 lumen? Man you guys are really afraid of a little light. Which I find weird seeing as we're all flashaholics. Yes, 1 lumen seems bright when you just wake up, but at least my eyes adjust pretty quickly. It's not an issue. Given no flashlight, I'll turn on the bathroom light. Yes it's bright and hurts for a second, but I'm tough enough to deal with it I guess. Seriously, how important is it to maintain your cave darkness vision when you're going back to bed in a minute anyway? Do you guys find it unreasonably bright to sleep in a tent under the moonlight? I suppose I understand why a really low low would be useful for the military, but personally, I find the idea of buying a flashlight based on the fact that it has the ability to put out nearly no light to be rather, um, amusing.


Not sure that you're really understanding the posts made supporting use of a real low-low. If you live in the city it's understandable, but basically we all buy lights for the same reason; to produce enough light to see according to the situation. 

It's not that we buy lights to put out nearly no light, but rather to be able to adjust to our needs. I'm very used to walking by the light of the moon or aurora and sometimes that's the perfect amount of light, which I can now aproximate from my multi-level lights.


----------



## defloyd77 (Aug 5, 2009)

I don't get it. Flashaholics can justify extreme overkill, but not underkill?


----------



## Patriot (Aug 5, 2009)

.2 lumen is a bit low for me but I'll often use a 1 lumen in my Novatac.


----------



## Henk_Lu (Aug 5, 2009)

kaichu dento said:


> Not sure that you're really understanding the posts made supporting use of a real low-low. If you live in the city it's understandable, but basically we all buy lights for the same reason; to produce enough light to see according to the situation.
> 
> It's not that we buy lights to put out nearly no light, but rather to be able to adjust to our needs. I'm very used to walking by the light of the moon or aurora and sometimes that's the perfect amount of light, which I can now aproximate from my multi-level lights.



This thread is highly interesting and the posting above says it all...

In the Ralight Manual, you're told that the output is so variable that you can adjust it to your actual needs. Not enough light means not the right security, too much light means being blinded and unnecessary power consumption.

In 99% of the threads we speak about brightness, throw, output, runtime, the more, the better. That's normal, if you speak about cars, it's high speed, acceleration, consumption. Real life however is 99% not on the edge. Perhaps there are some people who only use their flashlights on maximum and wear sunglasses if necessary, but surely most of us know to adjust the output to our needs and so the highest output is probably the less used (and mostly for testing purposes).

Of course, the other edge, the low Low, is also a mode that's hardly used and there are actually enough explanations in this thread why the lowest Low possible is nevertheless very usefull sometimes. I'm also the one who uses by now the LF3XT (my Clickys are not programmed on Low as they are for a different use) on Low each night to go to the bathroom and as soon as my Quarks arrive, one of them will replace the LF3XT which is still to bright for me at night.

7777s knew what he did when he integrated the moon mode. For me, it was ONE reason to buy 3 Quarks, but there were others of course, as it wasn't the only thing he knew to do when he designed them! :thumbsup:


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 5, 2009)

With night adapted vision I find the lowest-low setting on my Jet-III M perfect in zero ambient light conditions it's supposedly around 2 lumens, I've never experience anything lower so I guess I'll have to wait for a completed battery vampire module/project :thumbsup:


----------



## HighLumens (Aug 5, 2009)

I use my LF2XT lowest low (.3lumens??) very often. In ceiling bouncing it's enough to see around a room.

Even the lowest low is blinding if I light up something close to my face (less than 50cm away) with dark adapted eyes.


----------



## oldpal (Aug 5, 2009)

You bet I do. I have a Quark AA and have it on my nightstand. The moon-mode is more than enough light to get around the house at night. My Ra 120E, which I also use, is programmed for an even lower low level.

I am more concerned with how low my lights go than with how high they go.

Hugh


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI (Aug 5, 2009)

I go to the bathroom in the middle of the night with my MagCharger61-700lms.Anything less and I would miss the toilet.:nana:


----------



## Egsise (Aug 5, 2009)

I used to use LD10 low+red lens tailstanding as a night light.
Now I use QAAW moon mode tailstanding and it's much better than LD10.


----------



## Closet_Flashaholic (Aug 5, 2009)

With my D10 Q5 being 3 lumens, I was expecting much lower output for the Quark AA's 0.2 lumen rating.

That wasn't the case for me. I find that the D10 and QAA are very close on their respective low settings. I was a little disappointed because I was hoping for a lower output than the D10. I attributed (either correctly or incorrectly) the similiarity in output to be the difference between the "estimated" LED output lumens of the D10 vs. the OTF lumens of the QAA. Or I could have a "hot" D10.

In reality, it looks like I am looking for around 0.02 OTF lumens for a low-end. Maybe my next light - or I will just use the tritium output from my watch as I have done in the past  

Maybe someone should design a light that has slots for tritium in the reflector for that really low output and a runtime of 12.7 years continuous run. That would blow a few runtime specs out of the water - I would like to see someone's review/confirmation of that spec. :laughing: Of course one would have to be ready to accept the sickly green/yellow/blue/red trit colors currently available as a source of light....


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 5, 2009)

ANDREAS FERRARI said:


> I go to the bathroom in the middle of the night with my MagCharger61-700lms.Anything less and I would miss the toilet.:nana:



Install a urinal!


----------



## flatline (Aug 5, 2009)

I don't want bright light for two reasons.

1. I don't want to wake up my wife if I can avoid it. Therefore, turning the bathroom light on is out or using a flashlight that lights up the whole room (enough to be noticeable from behind closed eyelids).

2. I like to be able to look up from what I'm reading and still be able to see something without aiming the flashlight at it (and thus, increasing the risk of waking up the wife). If the flashlight is too bright, then when I look away from its illumination, I can't see anything. If it's sufficiently dim, then my eyes are still dark adjusted when I look away and I can see things clearly using just the ambient light.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Aug 5, 2009)

I can't believe how useful the Quark moonmode is when doing a ceiling bounce. It lights up my bedroom really well with dark adapted eyes and also doesn't ruin my night vision. Last night I used it this way and when I turned it off I could still see the other very dim light sources that I only see with night vision.:twothumbs


----------



## TITAN1833 (Aug 5, 2009)

Yes I always use a low,low .?? lumen in fact I think it's essential to have at least one light that has it.

Apart from what has already been mentioned it's especially useful in a power outage and with dark adapted eyes .2 is ample light and one AAA battery will get you through 12 hours of darkness easily if needed.


So for me it's essential it's like saying to me do I use 580 lumen,both ranges of lumen's and many in between that have there uses depending on the situation 



[edit]I picture looking down into my LF3XT on low 0.3 lumen IIRC


----------



## lrp (Aug 5, 2009)

That is plenty for the majority of my light tasks!!


----------



## Wiggle (Aug 5, 2009)

If the low-mode is too high for my liking (say 10 lumens +) I just hold it like a candle and it provides a softer, less glaring light.


----------



## alphazeta (Aug 5, 2009)

The sub 1 lumen level of my lights is my most used level. 

I keep it on at that level on my nightstand.
Frankly, I find the lowest level of a light such as a NC D10, LF3xt to be noticeably (& annoyingly so) brighter than the lowest level of a novatac or ralight. 
In darkness, the difference between 0.2 lumen & 0.08 lumen is DRASTIC.


----------



## FlashlightsNgear.com (Aug 5, 2009)

I rarely use the lowest setting on my lights that go as low as 5 lumens but its nice when its needed, .2 is lower than most need. 5 lumens is perfect, doesnt interfere with my night vision at all and run-times are way up their even in a single cell flashlight. Can someone with a 5 lumen light compare the .2 lumen with it and maybe get a picture on a piece of paper up close? Iam doubting much difference as far as the eye sees the 2 together, but its nice to see people (flashoholics) actually use it some.


----------



## Search (Aug 5, 2009)

I have never seen the .2 lumen of the Quark but I can say this.

The 5 lumen rating of my E1B has never really suited me. If it was 15 - 20 I think it would be more useful.

I remember my old 6PL dying down to completely dead one night in the pitch black and when it was getting close to nothing (around .2) lumens, it would utterly useless. 

Unless you were in a combat type situation and wanted to read something without anyone seeing you I couldn't "*personally*" see the use of it. That's just me.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Aug 5, 2009)

Search said:


> I have never seen the .2 lumen of the Quark but I can say this.
> 
> The 5 lumen rating of my E1B has never really suited me. If it was 15 - 20 I think it would be more useful.
> 
> ...


 
I can do 3-5 lumen... but .2, I don't think I can.


----------



## ninjaboigt (Aug 5, 2009)

when i first ordered my quark i thought 0.2 lumens is just stupid. but then i actually used it and its actually useful for those times when u need light but not too much light to make a scene. or if i were truelly in a situation that i needed light for a longgggg time. this setting would be great..


----------



## passive101 (Aug 5, 2009)

ninjaboigt said:


> when i first ordered my quark i thought 0.2 lumens is just stupid. but then i actually used it and its actually useful for those times when u need light but not too much light to make a scene. or if i were truelly in a situation that i needed light for a longgggg time. this setting would be great..



Or if you have to move through your house making the least amount of disturbance possible.


----------



## ninjaboigt (Aug 5, 2009)

yup, such as not waking up my mom and having her yelling at me to go to bed...

Or when parked near my gf's house and she needs to look thru her purse and dont want to draw her parent's attention..etc etc...


----------



## f22shift (Aug 5, 2009)

sweet, new marketing slogan.

the 4sevens quark, ninja-approved :nana:


----------



## 2xTrinity (Aug 5, 2009)

I use ~0.2 lumen modes all the time. As in hours a day, every day. I do a lot of research experiments that require dark environments, yet still require me to see at the same time -- 0.2 lumens doesn't disturb any measurements, but I can still see the task at hand. Not only that, I use it to navigate at home without being a disturbance. 

In fact, I've successfully gone night-hiking before using the 0.2 lumen low mode of my LF2x to light the trail before without any problem. If I needed more light, I had a Mag 5761 able to crank out ~1000 lumens to turn to (I like my lights extremely dim, or extremely bright... nothing in between)


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Aug 5, 2009)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> I just received my D10...
> 
> But I don't think I can use the .2 lumen provided by Quark or other flashlight with low low...
> 
> How many of you guys/gals use the .2 lumen? I don't think I can walk around the room/house with .2 lumen, can you?



I don't have a D10 but I have my HDS EDC set at *0.08 lumens* at the Primary setting. I would set it lower but that is already as low as it goes... I have no trouble walking around the house with that output. 0.08 lumens is still *way too bright* for some of *my* activities.

My most used light for navigating the house is a Photon Freedom, NV Green, Covert nose running on one 3v cr2032 instead of the two stock 3v cr2016s. It is the light I own that gets turned on *the most.* If my eyes are dark adapted I have no trouble getting around the house with the PF set at way, *way* lower levels than the 0.08 lumens minimum setting of the HDS EDC.

The few lights that have very low settings are produced because they are useful to many customers. I use dim lights quite a bit and I find that those who flatly pronounce them usless *have not* diminished their usefulness to me.

The ability to successfully utilize very dim lights should not be expected to come to one by simply picking up the light and turning it on. It is the product of an individual's own *Light Culture* combined with *need, research, experimentation, practice* and *training.* One may realistically expect to continue to become more proficient the longer one works at it, even over the course of decades.

It is a learned experience.


----------



## ninjaboigt (Aug 5, 2009)

f22shift said:


> sweet, new marketing slogan.
> 
> the 4sevens quark, ninja-approved :nana:


 
LOL!


----------



## Henk_Lu (Aug 5, 2009)

TITAN1833 said:


> Yes I always use a low,low .?? lumen in fact I think it's essential to have at least one light that has it.
> 
> ---
> 
> [edit]I picture looking down into my LF3XT on low 0.3 lumen IIRC



O gosh, is the LF3XT only 0,3 Lumen? I didn't check, but I thought it was around 1 Lumen... 

A pity I need both my Clickys to be programmed not on Low, but if both lights have the right output 0,2 Lumen should be lower than 0,3 Lumen! :thinking: I have 2 Olight Titanium Infinitum, one american edition and one european edition, the Low on one is probably double the Lumen than the other one (On High they also differ).


----------



## Flying Turtle (Aug 5, 2009)

Having a real low level has become a deal breaker for me, for the most part. I've been spoiled by the LiteFluxes and Photon Protons and Freedoms. Maybe it is a little silly slinking around at these low levels, but that's the fun of these lights.

Geoff


----------



## Dude Dudeson (Aug 5, 2009)

defloyd77 said:


> Bingo! Especially number 2, I have insomnia like crazy, the last thing I need is more mental stimilation lol.


 
Wow, I too have insomnia and if I have to use the bathroom during the night it screws me out of another hour of sleep. I'm going to have to try using some extremely low lighting next time that happens - I simply never thought of it. Never would have guessed I might stay drowsier that way.


----------



## Marduke (Aug 5, 2009)

Dim red is best. I use a Photon Proton Pro as a bedside light specifically for that reason.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Aug 5, 2009)

Dude Dudeson said:


> Wow, I too have insomnia and if I have to use the bathroom during the night it screws me out of another hour of sleep. I'm going to have to try using some extremely low lighting next time that happens - I simply never thought of it. Never would have guessed I might stay drowsier that way.


As a life long insomniac I'm very concerned about using the _least possible light_ in the middle of the night. Light will drive the *melatonin* right out of your blood in short order. Less serum melatonin = less sleep.


----------



## f22shift (Aug 5, 2009)

this is all true. i read an article that stated for ppl who have trouble sleeping should wear sunglasses most of the time and vice versa for the ppl who wake up too early.


----------



## foxtrot29 (Aug 5, 2009)

I use the lowest low on the D10 to check on my baby frequently at night. I'd prefer lower since it still sometimes annoys my wife.


----------



## Bushman5 (Aug 5, 2009)

there has just been a cave in in tunnel 7 at the local coal mine. 20 miners are trapped almost 500 feet down, they have relocated to an emergency muster point. There is over 9 tunnels collapsed, it will take heavy equipment working 24/7 for two weeks to remove the debris and reach the trapped miners.

one of the miners has a light that has .02 lumen setting. It will run for over 500 hours on that setting. The miners will be able to see, administer first aid to the injured form the Muster Point FAK, and assess their situation.

just a hypothetical scenario, where a loooooooooooong running .02 lumens would come in handy.


----------



## Narcosynthesis (Aug 5, 2009)

Really it all depends on what you need of your lights...

If you normally use them for digging around in cupboards or lighting your way along a path, then a low low is not going to be much use when you are lighting up something for daylight adjusted eyes, or lighting a larger area.

On the other hand, if you are wanting a light for reading in the dark without ruining your night vision completely or a light for small tasks in complete darkness (not the normal city darkness where residual glow from streetlights leave everywhere with some degree of light) and night adjusted eyes a low low could be perfect and even the 10 lumen a fairly bright light for that situation/task

The example that brought it home for me was staying in a large open dorm with a lot of people, the 16 lumen low on my L1T used in that room is more than enough power to annoy people awake reflecting off a wall or annoy light sleepers if I shone it on them accidentally. 
The **** poor output (measured conventionally ) of a Mag solitaire on the other hand was a perfect output to let me sort my sleeping gear and so on without bothering anyone (though battery life is still abysmal). 

The other option is a red filter - used on a brighter light it will knock the output back a degree and also change the white light to a more night vision friendly red and allow something like the L1T to be used where the 16 lumen low would be too much - something that has been effective for me when sharing tents before.


----------



## iTorch (Aug 5, 2009)

I am saying what others have said, my 120p novatac has .008 lumens (no flickering now that I use AW rcr), and whilst is is very low it works great, when I get up I can get dressed without waking my wife but see perfectly with it, once I get outside I flick to 2-3 lumns, becuase I have to go past a sensor light that blasts me and destroys night vision just before I descends a pebble strewn, slippry path.

Would I go even lower? maybe, never seen one lower, this works fine for night time. Plus when i need more light its ajust a press away.


----------



## smflorkey (Aug 5, 2009)

I often use the lowest level of my Spartanian II (supposed to be .07 lumens) around the house at night. I sometimes use this level in theaters to read the program with minimal impact on others around me. It usually seems too bright in the theater. YMMV

To put this in context, I grew up on a farm so I know how to use available light. OHOH, I've spent the past 30+ years in urban environments. My current home is grossly over-lit at night (IMHO), but my wife and daughter find it quite dark. I celebrated my 58th birthday a few months ago so my eyes are not what they used to be (back on the farm). 

Hope that helps,
Steve


----------



## guiri (Aug 5, 2009)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> How many of you guys/gals use the .2 lumen? I don't think I can walk around the room/house with .2 lumen, can you?



You would if you were stuck in the dark woods, ruins after an earthquake or something and you'll be glad you have it as it'll give you usable light for weeks.

George


----------



## Search (Aug 5, 2009)

guiri said:


> You would if you were stuck in the dark woods, ruins after an earthquake or something and you'll be glad you have it as it'll give you usable light for weeks.
> 
> George



If something happened so bad that I was stuck in the woods for two weeks i would want a LOT more light.

Time to hunt zombies :twothumbs


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Aug 5, 2009)

Search said:


> If something happened so bad that I was stuck in the woods for two weeks i would want a LOT more light.
> 
> Time to hunt zombies :twothumbs


I'd go with the super dim light -- it's ten times easier to hide from zombies than it is to hunt them. Been there, done that, got the smelly t-shirt.

*"Discretion is the better part of valor."*


----------



## brucec (Aug 5, 2009)

Didn't you guys' mothers ever tell you that reading in poor light is bad for your eyes? 

Here is what Wiki, the de facto authority on internet information, has to say about the issue.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_reading_in_the_dark_bad_for_your_eyes

Maybe eye-strain is causing all of the insomnia...


----------



## guiri (Aug 5, 2009)

Search said:


> If something happened so bad that I was stuck in the woods for two weeks i would want a LOT more light.
> 
> Time to hunt zombies :twothumbs



Alright, let's see here. You have a choice of whatever output at full blast for a couple of hours or something you KNOW will let you have usable light for maybe 100-200 hours and you choose to blast the night?

So, what do you do after you've given the first three zombies a sun tan?


----------



## vali (Aug 6, 2009)

brucec said:


> Didn't you guys' mothers ever tell you that reading in poor light is bad for your eyes?
> 
> Here is what Wiki, the de facto authority on internet information, has to say about the issue.
> 
> ...



So do you think is better burning the retina using a powerfull light agains white paper just a few inches from your eyes? :shakehead


----------



## brucec (Aug 6, 2009)

vali said:


> So do you think is better burning the retina using a powerfull light agains white paper just a few inches from your eyes? :shakehead


 
Umm, I think the article was recommending reading in a properly lighted room or chair. You know, like normal people without high powered LED flashlights do. :tinfoil:


----------



## kaichu dento (Aug 6, 2009)

oldpal said:


> I am more concerned with how low my lights go than with how high they go.


+1

All the leading companies lights have plenty of output for my needs, but what they more often lack is the ability to dial down to a the lower levels, which are what I mostly use at night. About the only time I use my high settings are during the daytime when I'm searching in shaded areas that are surrounded by light, but still hard to see into.


----------



## Mike V (Aug 6, 2009)

How bright is the lowest setting on a Photon Freedom Micro?

I love the lowest setting on this light for getting around the house when everyone else has gone to bed.

I love a really low low for reading in bed too.
For example I find the low setting on the Zebralight H501 too bright.

The Photon REX I guess is 4 times brighter than this, since it uses 4 x LEDs ?


----------



## DM51 (Aug 6, 2009)

The battery indicator LEDs in the tailcap of my Polarion PH40 will give me ~ 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, 0.04 and 0.05 lumens, depending on how many of the 5 LEDs are lit to indicate the state of charge of the battery. 
 
This is plenty of light for wandering furtively around some districts in Vladivostok after dark (it is sometimes advisable here not to be too conspicuous) but there can occasionally be a problem with the ~5,000 lm (and heat emissions) emerging from the front end of the PH40 if this is insufficiently shielded from view by a stout lens-cap.


----------



## LightJaguar (Aug 6, 2009)

brucec said:


> Umm, I think the article was recommending reading in a properly lighted room or chair. You know, like normal people without high powered LED flashlights do. :tinfoil:



:laughing::laughing:

That had me laughing a bit.
I kind of wonder if back in the days before High Powered LEDs were available, the super low low phenomenon was as popular. I also wonder if those .2 lumens from the Quark is out the front lumens or emitter lumens?
I myself find that my .002 lumens from my very discharged Streamlight stylus is a tad too bright for my force sensitive eyes. 
Before my Jedi training I tried using a 1 lumen setting to walk around the house and ended up stepping on doggy poop.


----------



## Yapo (Aug 6, 2009)

Heh when i was a kid i used to read books under the covers in bed by candle light!:candle:

...by candle light i mean a pack of "Glow in the dark" candles


----------



## gbelleh (Aug 6, 2009)

Why not just use a light with a small tritium locator. You'd never even have to switch it on, and you'd have at least 12 years of runtime, with no loss of night vision.


----------



## matrixshaman (Aug 6, 2009)

brucec said:


> Blinded by 1 lumen? Man you guys are really afraid of a little light. Which I find weird seeing as we're all flashaholics. Yes, 1 lumen seems bright when you just wake up, but at least my eyes adjust pretty quickly. It's not an issue. Given no flashlight, I'll turn on the bathroom light. Yes it's bright and hurts for a second, but I'm tough enough to deal with it I guess. Seriously, how important is it to maintain your cave darkness vision when you're going back to bed in a minute anyway? Do you guys find it unreasonably bright to sleep in a tent under the moonlight? I suppose I understand why a really low low would be useful for the military, but personally, I find the idea of buying a flashlight based on the fact that it has the ability to put out nearly no light to be rather, um, amusing.



Well there are other people often in the same room at night for many of us and it's much kinder to use a very low level flashlight that goes unnoticed by any one with eyes closed than to flip on a 60 watt overhead light or a 140 lumen flashlight - guaranteed to cause some grumbling.


----------



## Coop57 (Aug 6, 2009)

I find the .02lm setting on my Quark AA to be perfect for picking up dog crap that my dog loves to deposit in my neighbors yards during our nightly walks.
Now that is *TACTICAL*.


----------



## Search (Aug 6, 2009)

guiri said:


> Alright, let's see here. You have a choice of whatever output at full blast for a couple of hours or something you KNOW will let you have usable light for maybe 100-200 hours and you choose to blast the night?
> 
> So, what do you do after you've given the first three zombies a sun tan?



When people put together BOB (Myself included) they always throw out there that one reason is if they are stuck in the woods for a long period of time.

Unless you live in the remote nothingness and for some reason your house and vehicle is unlivable, your probably not going to be in the middle of no where.

Unless "Resident Evil" because reality I can say there is a 95 - 99 percent chance of me never doing this. (I don't take helicopter rides over the middle of no where, so no worries of crashes). 

In this situation, if I only had a light with .2 lumens, I wouldn't expect to survive very long. 

I mean, even if you were just hiking, there are other things out in the woods that would enjoy eating you.

It's why I keep a couple of lights and a lot of batteries ready to grab ASAP. If my house was destroyed and I had no way of getting those, I would probably be dead. If I leave, I grab. I leave really quick, I still grab.

In a few months I'll have two extra handguns to add to this.

*.2 lumens can only do so much. For the rest you need a real light source.*


----------



## Dude Dudeson (Aug 6, 2009)

I don't currently own anything with a setting that low, but when I did the most common use for me was looking around inside my black backpack.

Even ten lumens can be a bit much for something like that.

Second most common was probably lighting up a pile of crap on the passenger seat of the car while driving at night - unless I'm on streets with lights I really hate driving with the interior car lights on.

Third most common was probably while digging through boxes inside a closet (that had no light).

When I was much younger I often hung out outside with friends - extremely low lumens came in handy a lot of times then (we'd be places where being discovered wouldn't be a good thing).

This is all just off the top of my head, but bottom line is there's way more situations that "being stranded in the woods" where low light levels can come in handy.

Matter of fact I need to get something like that again - probably just some super cheap keychain light like I used to have...


----------



## jhc37013 (Aug 6, 2009)

The only times I use low I will grab the Jet3 Pro St on its lowest to go into bedroom when wife and kid are sleeping, looking in car for something and I use a ZL H501 on low while reading.


----------



## kaichu dento (Aug 6, 2009)

Search said:


> *.2 lumens can only do so much. For the rest you need a real light source.*


I have yet to see a single post suggesting that a .2 lumen light was the be all, end all light, but it is an extremely valuable setting to have available on a multi-level light for those of us who find it to be highly desirable.

For me my .08 - 10 lumen range is what I use most at night, primarily using higher settings much more rarely, making it most certainly a real light source.


LightJaguar said:


> I kind of wonder if back in the days before High Powered LEDs were available, the super low low phenomenon was as popular.


Back in the day, people were hoping to get enough light out of an led to make it into a real flashlight. Although it's much higher output than the .2 lumens being discussed here, the Arc AAA's still have many supporters/users here, myself included.

The only two lights I have that have a low too dim for me to end up finding useful on a regular basis are my Titan and my tritium map reading lights; all others, 120P, LF2XT, Quarks and D10 included could definitely benefit from an even lower setting availability.


----------



## BigBluefish (Aug 6, 2009)

I received my neutral tint Quark 123 (no clip, Tactical, thank you) expecting to find the .2 or .3 lumen moonlight mode waaaaay too dim to be of any use. WRONG. It is just right for navigating around a dark house at night. If you go up to the "low" 3.5 lumens, it lights up the whole room, if your eyes are dark adapted. It should be a great setting for camping, if there's cloud cover at night, and perfect for walking logging roads this fall on the way to my deer stand.


----------



## Search (Aug 6, 2009)

kaichu dento said:


> I have yet to see a single post suggesting that a .2 lumen light was the be all, end all light



Nor did I imply that.

I said that was how I personally felt. Given the thread is called "Do you really use 0.2 lumens?" My answer is no because I don't feel like it has much of a use.

I think 100% of CPF can agree that .2 lumens can only do so much.


----------



## kaichu dento (Aug 6, 2009)

Search said:


> ... .2 lumens can only do so much.


Yes, I definitely agree with that, but to continue further, what .2 lumens is generally used for it accomplishes much more gracefully than 10, 100 or 1,000 lumens can do, regardless of how desirable they are for times when they are perfectly applicable. :thumbsup:


----------



## AbnInfantry (Aug 6, 2009)

kaichu dento said:


> it is an extremely valuable setting to have available on a multi-level light for those of us who find it to be highly desirable.



I wholeheartedly concur. The two flashlight settings I find most useful are maximum brightness and an extremely dim low. The lowest setting on many flashlights simply isn't low enough in my experience.


----------



## defloyd77 (Aug 6, 2009)

Search said:


> I think 100% of CPF can agree that .2 lumens can only do so much.



And I think CPF will agree that 200 lumens can only do so much. It's useless for seeing 5 miles down the road


----------



## Saint_Dogbert (Aug 6, 2009)

I use .2 lumens a lotmore than 200 lumens. I agree with those who say that sometimes even .2 isn't quite low enough.


----------



## mossyoak (Aug 6, 2009)

the lower the output the better for me, i use the min and max levels the most. im either indoors and trying not to wake any body up or outside trying to stay low key, but when i really need light i want to make it damn near daylight outside.


----------



## RWT1405 (Aug 6, 2009)

I know that I use low (below 45 lumens), a WHOLE lot more then high. And yes, I think 0.2 lumens can be very useful (at times, depending on the level of darkness, etc.), when I need to not disturb others; need to retain my night vision; to not have more light then I need, reflected back at me, thus blinding me; etc.. 

In fact, I will say that I find 0.2 lumens a lot more useful then 200 lumens, most of the time.

My .02 FWIW YMMV


----------



## HDS_Systems (Aug 7, 2009)

I do a fair amount to search and rescue (SAR) work. The majority of calls come after the sun has set so we spend a lot of time operating in the dark. If you have every spent any time in the southwest desert mountains of southern Arizona, you know how steep and rugged they are. I do most of my night hiking using the default low setting on my flashlight (0.3 lumens) and have no problem following difficult mountain trails.

If I need to see the bottom of the canyon or across the canyon or down a ridge or find a route down a steep hillside, shifting to full output (170 or 200 lumens) for a few moments allows me to see much further than if I had been using a higher output. The reason is that my eyes have adapted to the much lower output (0.3) lumens so the effective reach of the 170 to 200 lumens is between doubled and tripled compared to me using 12 lumens on the trail and then trying to see a long distance. This is a very practical use for lower output and maximizing the utility of a higher output.

Yes, it takes a bit of getting used to. However, once you realize how well it works, you will not go back to the old ways. I have trained many other SAR people in this technique and they now use it extensively.

We were the first LED flashlight manufacturer to provide multiple output levels - over 10 years ago. Power conservation (i.e., battery runtime) and distant vision (i.e., the ability to see further) are the two primary reasons. You may wish to read the various articles and the FAQ on our web site for additional information.

Other uses for 0.3 lumens? Reading a menu at a nice restaurant after they dim the lights without annoying the other patrons. Finding your seat after the house lights have dimmed in the theater without annoying the entire audience. Finding your way to the bathroom at night without waking the dead. Reading a map in the car without blinding the driver. Clandestine activities. There are many uses for low light levels.

Henry.


----------



## Search (Aug 7, 2009)

kaichu dento said:


> Yes, I definitely agree with that, but to continue further, what .2 lumens is generally used for it accomplishes much more gracefully than 10, 100 or 1,000 lumens can do, regardless of how desirable they are for times when they are perfectly applicable. :thumbsup:



I fully agree  I reckon it will become more useful when I move in with my GF. She tends to get cranky when the lamp turns on at 3am.



defloyd77 said:


> And I think CPF will agree that 200 lumens can only do so much. It's useless for seeing 5 miles down the road



I would have to agree with CPF. However, your getting a jump start on those zombie though


----------



## Dude Dudeson (Aug 7, 2009)

HDS_Systems said:


> If I need to see the bottom of the canyon or across the canyon or down a ridge or find a route down a steep hillside, shifting to full output (170 or 200 lumens) for a few moments allows me to see much further than if I had been using a higher output.


 
A very key point, one that I just this week had to re-educate myself on!

Your bright light is way more effective in the dark if you haven't been using it.

I took a night hike (a true hike, no street lights, no city, no moon) with my M60 a few weeks ago, ran it for 40 minutes straight because I wanted to test runtime and heat management. I got to the point where it didn't seem that bright, started thinking the batteries might be going.

Tonight I went for a 3 mile walk with a full moon and a few street lights here and there (still a pretty rural environment though). Same batteries.

I mostly walked with nothing but the moonlight, but flashed the M60 a few times just for the hell of it. It seemed insanely bright again.


----------



## DHart (Aug 7, 2009)

Yeah... .2 lumen is fine for late night navigating when ambient light is very, very low. Perfect for not waking "sleeping others" while you are ambulating around in a dark room. I use my Quarks quite a bit at .2 lumens in the late hours, when I don't want to awaken my sleeping wife.


----------



## Dude Dudeson (Aug 7, 2009)

I have to somewhat agree though, a light level that low in any flashlight big enough to hold in your "hand" does seem a bit ridiculous.

Sure, if you're in a tactical situation like military or whatever and can't be depending on multiple lights too much, yeah...

But me, when I'm looking for that kind of light output, I've always reached to my hip and grabbed the ultra small cheapie keychain light from my belt loop. Used to attach them with a little snap swivel.

I need to get another one. I miss those little things.

Even my smallest light, an old 30 lumen LED of unknown manufacture, is way overkill for a lot of things.

That said, I love my 6P/M60, and I'm going to get a MD4 Wildcat if Malkoff keeps producing them!


----------



## passive101 (Aug 7, 2009)

Dude Dudeson said:


> I have to somewhat agree though, a light level that low in any flashlight big enough to hold in your "hand" does seem a bit ridiculous.




At night I only keep one light on my nightstand next to my firearm so this makes it convenient. This light is 123x2 so I have no problems using the tiny bit of battery power to run at night even while at home. It's also more efficient at .2 lumens then any of my other lights.

A light big enough to hold in your hand is the only thing I'd want to try to hold onto when I am wearing gloves and trying to read paperwork. 

If anyone has ever worked a construction site 3rd shift as security and only been able to use a port-a-poty you know what the low light is for


I guess it really depends on if you have a use for the light or not. There certainly is a lot of competition and most lights do not go down this far. For me this certainly beats the guys who carry a AA mag light for low light and some other type of light for brightness. My pants are heavy enough without the need for that


----------



## jahxman (Aug 7, 2009)

DHart said:


> Yeah... .2 lumen is fine for late night navigating when ambient light is very, very low. Perfect for not waking "sleeping others" while you are ambulating around in a dark room. I use my Quarks quite a bit at .2 lumens in the late hours, when I don't want to awaken my sleeping wife.


 
This is exactly the main use I put it to - that and managing to not step on my dog, who has a habit of picking a different spot to sleep on the floor each night, ignoring her perfectly good bed - and usually choosing a spot directly in my path to the bathroom.:huh:

And when she does get stepped on while sleeping - well, its all just the jumping and yelping and snapping and whimpering and then the apologies and sulky looks and everyone is up and awake at that point and feeling a bit frayed....

So a little .2 lumen light improves my life quite a bit actually...:thumbsup:


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 7, 2009)

I find .2 lumen perfect for a night light. Pointless for most anything else. My .2 lumen light has a preflash that lets me know it turned on...great feature :thumbsup:


----------



## WadeF (Aug 7, 2009)

I thought I'd add that I also use the ultra low settings on my flashlights to check on my sleeping kids. I remember when I had my Fenix P2D the low was so bright that it would disturb my kids if I shined it on their face. You could see their eyes twitch and squint, even though they were asleep. Now with lights like my Quark, Liteflux LF3XT, etc, that have lows in the sub 1 lumen range, I can now shine the beam on their face and they aren't disturbed by it. 

I wish more of my lights had lows that were under 1 lumen, and even under 0.1 lumen. 

I believe my Photon Rex has the lowest low of any of my flashlights. Anyone know how many lumens it is rated for on low?


----------



## brucec (Aug 7, 2009)

WadeF said:


> You could see their eyes twitch and squint, even though they were asleep. Now with lights like my Quark, Liteflux LF3XT, etc, that have lows in the sub 1 lumen range, I can now shine the beam on their face



:laughing: Sorry, I couldn't help but feel a little sorry for your kids and their flashaholic dad. I can't deny I haven't done it myself though... These days, I find the Sundrop 3S on low or medium ceiling bounced to be just right. The Sundrop or mules are really great indoor lights, but none of them are capable of sub 1 lumen. Not necessary in my book if you use ceiling bounce, which I think is a more, um, humane way of checking on your kids.


----------



## bcwang (Aug 8, 2009)

To give more experience that 0.2 lumen mode is enough, last night I turned on the light a few times as I was laying in bed to help my wife find her way around. I kept thinking to myself, "is this really moon mode, it seems too bright" I had to turn it off wait, and turn it on again to make sure it is moon mode. It was lighting up a nice big circle on the ceiling and you could see quite well in the room. When I pointed it at stuff on the side it seemed too bright and not how I remember moon mode being. I proceeded to tap through the next 3 modes to verify. Yup, that first one was moon mode, and it is plenty bright for it's purpose. In fact it could even be dimmer and still be useful.

Normally in moon mode, just afer turning off main lights, you only notice a little hotspot on the ground, and it's hard to follow. But once your eyes are adapted the entire spill is very usable light that is plenty bright. This being my dimmest flashlight ever as well as being very bright when needed is just totally awesome.


----------



## DHart (Aug 8, 2009)

It seems that some may scoff at lights that offer very low lows... as if having a low low somehow is silly or somehow reduces a light's overall value. I couldn't disagree more.

Simply because .2 lumens isn't sufficient for a some applications doesn't mean it isn't perfectly suited to a number of alternate applications. I would never scoff at a light having the option for such a low output. In fact, I consider such a low output to be an essential part of a well rounded general use light. Many lights offering lows of around .2 lumen are also capable of instantly providing anywhere from 120 to 180 lumens... and numerous levels in between. I consider that flashlight genius... extremely useful and versatile.

Among my lights, I have a number of them with very low lumen output options: three Quarks, an LF3XT, LF2XT, D10 and H501W. These lights are my most used and useful lights... in part because of the loooow lows they are able to produce for those times when about .2 lumens or so is exactly perfect for the application at hand!


----------



## kaichu dento (Aug 8, 2009)

DHart said:


> It seems that some may scoff at lights that offer very low lows... as if having a low low somehow is silly or somehow reduces a light's overall value. I couldn't disagree more.
> 
> Simply because .2 lumens isn't sufficient for a some applications doesn't mean it isn't perfectly suited to a number of alternate applications. I would never scoff at a light having the option for such a low output. In fact, I consider such a low output to be an essential part of a well rounded general use light. Many lights offering lows of around .2 lumen are also capable of instantly providing anywhere from 120 to 180 lumens... and numerous levels in between. I consider that flashlight genius... extremely useful and versatile.
> 
> Among my lights, I have a number of them with very low lumen output options: three Quarks, an LF3XT, LF2XT, and D10. These lights are my most used and useful lights... in part because of the loooow lows they are able to produce for those times when about .2 lumens or so is exactly perfect for the application at hand!


Live and let live should be the standard, but unfortunately it has been exchanged for, if I like it, it's the best, if I don't like it, it's stupid.

I like my flashlights like my cars; plenty of horsepower, but the ability to go very slowly too when in the parking lot. I also prefer to have 4-speeds, whether it's lights or cars. Cars without first gear suck!


----------



## guiri (Aug 8, 2009)

Coop57 said:


> I find the .02lm setting on my Quark AA to be perfect for picking up dog crap that my dog loves to deposit in my neighbors yards during our nightly walks.
> Now that is *TACTICAL*.



Sweet! Stealthy dog pickeruper night mission :candle:


As for me, I PREFER a light that is as bright as possible but I ALSO want that super low, JUST in case. Also, a light with some insane output only lasts so long so a good intermediate level is good too,


----------



## guiri (Aug 8, 2009)

Search said:


> *.2 lumens can only do so much. For the rest you need a real light source.*



Ok, so what's wrong in HAVING that option? You don't want to use it, cool but what IF?


----------



## xenonk (Aug 8, 2009)

This discussion reminds me of why I like programmable lights. You can have lots of options and none of them have to get in the way when unneeded.
My neu-tac Quark should arrive soon. :twothumbs


----------



## oldpal (Aug 8, 2009)

Of my limited collection of lights, the ones that I use the most are the ones that have a very low output. They are my Ra 120E, Liteflux LF3XT and Quark AA. My Nitecores aren't low enough for me.

Hugh


----------



## WadeF (Aug 8, 2009)

brucec said:


> Not necessary in my book if you use ceiling bounce, which I think is a more, um, humane way of checking on your kids.



When I had my P2D I would normally tail stand it on my kids' dresser and ceiling bounce it. I would do this because I realized if I shined it at them it would disturb them. Once I got a dimmer light I no longer had to ceiling bounce as I could shine the light at them and have roughly the same amount of light hitting them as was hitting them from a brighter light that was ceiling bounced. 

Sometimes I'll turn my light up to a brighter setting and ceiling bounce to get a better look around.


----------



## Turbo DV8 (Aug 8, 2009)

d1live said:


> I havent seen .2 lumens, is it even visible lol. I cant wait to hear more on what this is used for.


 
It's the setting fireflies use to read maps by.


----------



## guiri (Aug 9, 2009)

Turbo DV8 said:


> It's the setting fireflies use to read maps by.



That's right 'cause it's hard to read when your *** is on fire and not your forehead 

I'm amazed at how many people responded that they like a low output.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 9, 2009)

guiri said:


> That's right 'cause it's hard to read when your *** is on fire and not your forehead



 So very true :thumbsup:


----------



## fnj (Aug 9, 2009)

If one can't walk around the house with 0.2 lumens when, and this is a big when, dark adapted, then there is something wrong with their vision. My eyes are in their seventh decade of use, and once dark adapted, 0.2 lumens is more than enough to navigate, and I have some wicked obstacle courses to navigate (as a guy living alone).


----------



## guiri (Aug 9, 2009)

The true test is when you have a black, 120LB Rottweiler that loves to lay in every door opening there is..

That'll put hair on your nuts when the fu*ker yelps in the middle of the night when you step on his big ***..


----------



## pertinax (Aug 9, 2009)

I'm just piling on, but yeah-- 0.2 is dynamite. In fact, there's only one thing non-optimum about the best outdoorsman's light there is (the TK20). The low is WAY too bright. Fenix needs to add a lower mode, or just make "low" ten lumens. That would be OK. The High, and as of now, the Low, are too bright to change a tire for instance. Both modes are blinding for up-close work in the dark. 

If that light had a third mode, at one lumen or less, it would be the perfect indestructible light.

(As an aside, I dropped my TK20 in Africa on safari while night hunting, and the trackers went back and found it the next day. Gotta love the trackers, they're amazing... The PH's have a hard time getting the latest gear, so there's now one carrying a TK20 with Eneloops, thanks to the flashaholics here at CPF. I strongly suspect that light is the envy of his peers; they have nothing like that available to them.)


----------



## kz1000s1 (Aug 9, 2009)

I use the lowest level on my Novatac all the time going to bed at night and sometimes wish it could be a little lower. My Quark tactical low is set on the second level, but it's nice to have the option to go dimmer if I need it.


----------



## brucec (Aug 9, 2009)

guiri said:


> The true test is when you have a black, 120LB Rottweiler that loves to lay in every door opening there is..
> 
> That'll put hair on your nuts when the fu*ker yelps in the middle of the night when you step on his big ***..


 
Sounds like he needs a good GITD job.


----------



## defloyd77 (Aug 9, 2009)

guiri said:


> The true test is when you have a black, 120LB Rottweiler that loves to lay in every door opening there is..
> 
> That'll put hair on your nuts when the fu*ker yelps in the middle of the night when you step on his big ***..



I have a 90+ LB black lab, rottweiler, pitbull and golden retriever mutt, who is black and a leftophobic 15ish pound cat (she only turns right), her roadblock 18 pound mom and 3 other cats, I can relate.


----------



## guiri (Aug 9, 2009)

It gets worse, I then have four other dogs than tend to NEVER get out of the way, ESPECIALLY when I'm in a hurry or I'm carrying some bulky poop and need the room. TWO of them are Great Danes 

What's GITD?


----------



## defloyd77 (Aug 9, 2009)

guiri said:


> It gets worse, I then have four other dogs than tend to NEVER get out of the way, ESPECIALLY when I'm in a hurry or I'm carrying some bulky poop and need the room. TWO of them are Great Danes
> 
> What's GITD?



LOL, dang that's got to suck. Glow In The Dark.


----------



## Marduke (Aug 9, 2009)

Sounds like you need a GITD dog...


----------



## guiri (Aug 9, 2009)

Poor pup. I also saw the glow in the dark cat. Great, that's all we need. Glow in the dark *****!

..and although my dog doesn't glow in the dark, here he is shot in complete darkness with the nightshot on my old Sony. Not bad for shooting a black dog in complete darkness


----------



## leon2245 (Aug 10, 2009)

I.D.K. about fractions of a lumen- how many lumens from a solitaire on a half drained battery? Because when my apartment's completely sealed off from light for day sleep, even the L1's 10l is too bright. The solitaire O.T.O.H. lets me see more, & does not make me squint (I.E. no accidents & I go back to sleep immediately).

Even my alarm clock's L.E.D. display on the lowest dimmer setting is too bright to sleep with, so I box it. It's really pitch black in there.


----------



## guiri (Aug 10, 2009)

Leon, you'd be screwed where I used to live, close to the arctic circle in the summer.

Nuttin' but daylight and let me say this, SUNSHINE 24 hours. Sun NEVER sets. It dips to the horizon but never really sets!

I've read the morning paper at 4am outside in sunshine


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Aug 10, 2009)

I took Marduke advice and went into my bathroom for about 5 min in total darkness, then turned on my D10. He is right, 3 lumen is pretty bright. But then, my bathroom walls are white so it somewhat reflect some light back. But when I went to the backyard (trying to get the feel of stuck in the forest), it's not that bright because I guess there's nothing to reflect back. So I don't I will use .2 lumen if I go camping.


----------



## defloyd77 (Aug 10, 2009)

guiri said:


> Leon, you'd be screwed where I used to live, close to the arctic circle in the summer.
> 
> Nuttin' but daylight and let me say this, SUNSHINE 24 hours. Sun NEVER sets. It dips to the horizon but never really sets!
> 
> I've read the morning paper at 4am outside in sunshine



Every flashaholic would be screwed there. I'm not a big fan of the sun, for some weird reason it makes me irritable. I get seasonal affective disorder during the freakin' summer.  What the heck is that?


----------



## guiri (Aug 10, 2009)

defloyd77 said:


> Every flashaholic would be screwed there. I'm not a big fan of the sun, for some weird reason it makes me irritable. I get seasonal affective disorder during the freakin' summer.  What the heck is that?



You're broken, that's all :sick2:

As for the floyds back yard, are you telling me there is ABSOLUTELY no light there at all? No street lights, moonlight or anything? It doesn't take much..


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Sep 4, 2009)

I just purchased a iTp A3 and really like the 1.5 lumen. It's very useful because it bright enough to do most things and it somewhat have some throw. I am very sure .2 lumen will not throw at all. In order to use it, one pretty much have to put the light right really really close to the object in order to illiminate it.

Edit: Thanks WadeF... I meant 0.2 lumen.


----------



## Marduke (Sep 4, 2009)

As stated many times, don't knock it until you've tried it. 0.2 lumens can illuminate an entire room in true darkness.


----------



## WadeF (Sep 4, 2009)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> I just purchased a iTp A3 and really like the 1.5 lumen. It's very useful because it bright enough to do most things and it somewhat have some throw. I am very sure .02 lumen will not throw at all. In order to use it, one pretty much have to put the light right really really close to the object in order to illiminate it.



My Quark on 0.2 lumen (moon mode) is enough light to light up my entire stair case at night time, from top to bottom. Once your eyes are adapted to the dark 0.2 lumens goes a long way. Especially with the Quark since it focuses that 0.2 lumens into a tight hot spot. Not sure if you meant 0.2 lumens, or .02 lumen. The topic is about 0.2 lumens, but you typed .02 lumen.


----------



## recDNA (Sep 4, 2009)

In another similar thread I answered, "NO, I have absolutely no use for anything less than 80 lumens" and they called me names, called my post garbage, and showed total disrespect. 

Are questions like this rhetorical in which we are only allowed to answer, "Oh YES, I LOVE ultra low moonlight mode in warm neutral white!" 

OR

AM I actually ALLOWED to have an opinion that contrasts with the majority? I'm dead serious here.

BTW, it doesn't bother me that some clearly love low light and I really like Quark flashlights but do I have the right to never use the moonlight mode without being labeled like some sort of Philistine?


----------



## scout24 (Sep 4, 2009)

As far as I am concerned, your opinion is as valid as mine. That is why we have more than one flashlight to choose from. I use super- low every morning, and love it. I also use 100+ lumens at work every day. Love the appropriate (for me) level when I need it! Use what you feel you need, when you need it, and I will do the same. :grouphug: lovecpf


----------



## DHart (Sep 4, 2009)

So true. In fact, late at night in a dark room I sometimes find the moon mode of my Quarks and the min of my LF2XT and LF3XT to be brighter than needed. 

I think .1 lumen would be fine for navigating a darkroom when trying not to awaken someone sleeping.


----------



## recDNA (Sep 4, 2009)

scout24 said:


> As far as I am concerned, your opinion is as valid as mine. That is why we have more than one flashlight to choose from. I use super- low every morning, and love it. I also use 100+ lumens at work every day. Love the appropriate (for me) level when I need it! Use what you feel you need, when you need it, and I will do the same. :grouphug: lovecpf


 
Thank you. I couldn't believe it when a poster called my post thread garbage. All I did was express an opinion. I have no use for ultra low power. I know others do. I also prefer flood to throw and blue white to warm white. Might as well paint a target on my head!


----------



## ThesaurZA (Sep 4, 2009)

I even find the 3 lumen on the D10 to be not bright enough if I get up at night.

But what I do find it very useful for is if I try to remove like a splinter from my hand, it gives just the right amount of light...anything brighter reflects off my skin and blinds me a bit.


----------



## scout24 (Sep 4, 2009)

DHart-
I agree... The low on the T1A is sometimes overkill in a room that i am familiar with. Tripping over my 120lb husky is no fun, and it lights him up from across the room.


----------



## Larbo (Sep 4, 2009)

I use the .2 on my Quark123 quite a bit inside with no other ambient lighting around, this works great....Kinda wish my PD30 also had this mode.


----------



## ThesaurZA (Sep 4, 2009)

Is it possible that some of us just see better at night at lower light levels than other? 

For instance, if I drive at night, I find it very difficult to see, but many people I know have no problems whatsoever. 

Maybe that's one reason why there are so many differences in experience.


----------



## Yucca Patrol (Sep 4, 2009)

I use the 0.5 lumen setting on my zebralight h60 every night to read in bed. My wife loves that she is not bothered by the light and once my eyes are adjusted it is plenty of light.

Also, the 0.3 lumens of my Ra Clicky is great for finding the bathroom and letting the dogs out in the night.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Sep 4, 2009)

Yucca Patrol said:


> I use the 0.5 lumen setting on my zebralight h60 every night to read in bed. My wife loves that she is not bothered by the light and once my eyes are adjusted it is plenty of light.
> 
> Also, the 0.3 lumens of my Ra Clicky is great for finding the bathroom and letting the dogs out in the night.


 
You use .3 lumen outdoor? Wow...


----------



## Swedpat (Sep 4, 2009)

Recently received a Quark AA2 neutral and 123. The lowest setting of 0,2 lumens is great to use with dark adapted eyes and to read text at close distance. I love this low mode as well I love the higher modes. It's more than enough to shine upp the way in total darkness. It's great when one wants to read or see something at close distance without to disturb or draw attention. 

Regards, Patric


----------



## tsask (Sep 4, 2009)

recDNA said:


> In another similar thread I answered, "NO, I have absolutely no use for anything less than 80 lumens" and they called me names, called my post garbage, and showed total disrespect.
> Are questions like this rhetorical in which we are only allowed to answer, "Oh YES, I LOVE ultra low moonlight mode in warm neutral white!"
> OR
> AM I actually ALLOWED to have an opinion that contrasts with the majority? I'm dead serious here.
> BTW, it doesn't bother me that some clearly love low light and I really like Quark flashlights but do I have the right to never use the moonlight mode without being labeled like some sort of Philistine?


 
Its a very fair question. I learned to appreciate the low low quite by accident. While attending (as a guest, so I did not want undue attention ) an outdoor evening social event (fireworks picnic), I was able to proivde light for an elderly person who needed to read a medicine label. In total darknesss, with adjusted eyes, that low low doesn't seem so low at all, it's great!

.2 lumen/ moon is one of the many features of the Quark I enjoy! Not since my cherished HDS XR42GT have I known such versatilty.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Sep 4, 2009)

I find the moon mode on my 123T neutral fairly useful, but I tend to use one of my A2's for that level of lighting instead.


----------



## fisk-king (Apr 5, 2010)

Marduke said:


> Besides not hurting when the bright light first comes on, there are other VERY good reasons to still use VERY dim light.
> 
> 1) Less disturbance to other sleeping in the room
> 
> 2) You can go back to sleep MUCH faster



I totally agree. I keep my Ra Clicky on nightstand duty w/ the triple click set to the lowest possible and 1 lumen just around the corner. If I wake up in the middle of the night and forced to turn on the bathroom light, it takes me a lonnnggg time to go back to sleep (its like my eyelids are glowing when there shut )


----------



## bstrickler (Apr 6, 2010)

ThesaurZA said:


> But what I do find it very useful for is if I try to remove like a splinter from my hand, it gives just the right amount of light...anything brighter reflects off my skin and blinds me a bit.



Get a Mag85. What splinter?! 

I use the 0.2 lumen mode every night, on my way to bed. I never know where my dog is sleeping, or if my older dog left a pile of vomit for me (she's been really sick lately). I also use it in the darkroom at school sometimes, when I'm in the dark corner (minimal light interference), on my own. For the darkroom purposes, I'd love a 0.05 lumen setting.

~Brian


----------



## Misan (Apr 6, 2010)

Periodically use mode 0,3 lumens as a nightlight. Dark and all items can be seen in the room. :thumbsup:


----------



## ss Dragonfly (Apr 6, 2010)

Just so you all know, I have been using the red filter on my LD20 as my night light and: 1. it is bright enough to navigate the house as well as other places nicely at night 2. it does not disturbe my sleeping child at nite.

Only a suggestion, but I believe it is an answer to some of your questions/needs. I certainly hope this helps someone.

Cheers, 
Shane


----------



## Curious_character (Apr 6, 2010)

Your ability to see a particular object is determined by the intensity (candelas = lux at one meter) level, not total light output (lumen) level. A 0.2 lumen light in candle mode won't light up anything very brightly, but it can be surprisingly bright if focused into a tight beam.

Some time back I set up an LF2 at a level comfortable for reading a chart but dim enough so it wouldn't seriously disturb dark-adapted eyes. Out of curiosity I just measured it. Its intensity is about 0.8 lux at one meter, and the total light output is about 0.22 lumen. It's plenty bright enough for walking around at night with even moderately dark-adapted eyes.

c_c


----------



## kaichu dento (Apr 6, 2010)

bstrickler said:


> Get a Mag85. What splinter?!
> 
> I use the 0.2 lumen mode every night, on my way to bed. I never know where my dog is sleeping, or if my older dog left a pile of vomit for me (she's been really sick lately). I also use it in the darkroom at school sometimes, when I'm in the dark corner (minimal light interference), on my own. For the darkroom purposes, I'd love a 0.05 lumen setting.


Just burn that splinter out of there! LOL! 

I use the lowest settings on my light always and seldom the high settings. That .05 sounds really good to me and I can't wait for the day where all lights have the ability for you to dial them down all the way to almost off.


----------



## hyperloop (Apr 6, 2010)

recDNA said:


> Thank you. I couldn't believe it when a poster called my post thread garbage. All I did was express an opinion. I have no use for ultra low power. I know others do. I also prefer flood to throw and blue white to warm white. Might as well paint a target on my head!



lol, don't take it to heart, it happens in forums across the Net. Like on a fishing forum where i espoused my views on conservation, i got slammed pretty badly but what the heck, it happens.

so as not to stray off topic, i find that i do use low modes and sometimes wish that my lights could go even lower especially when out night fishing in a dark spot, blazing bright lights aren't needed to go rooting around in my tackle box or backpack but a brighter light is sometimes useful when walking in or on a rocky breakwater to avoid holes in the rocks etc.

like was said earlier, use the level that the user finds appropriate, if my buddy wants to use 80 lumens to dig in his tackle box, hey, that is entirely his decision, just don't go shining those 80 lumens into my night adjusted eyes  (else i would retaliate with 225)


----------



## druidmars (Apr 6, 2010)

Bushman5 said:


> Marduke covered it perfectly! (dark adjusted eyes, etc)
> 
> 0.2 lumens is bright enough to light up a dark room if you turn it on after being asleep for some time (dark adjusted eyes). Its not so great in the woods except for close up work (map reading etc) or in areas of light poluttion.


 
With all that has been said I'm not sure I fully agree with you. One of the reasons I want a moon mode in my next flashlight is exactly because I want to use it in the woods and find my iTp A3 low (1.5l) too bright. Now it all depends on what kind of stroll one takes in the woods. I usually know my way around and I don't want to attract any attentions, so the point in having a moon mode is just to surpass any unforeseen obstacle that is in my way. In fact, I'd use it most of the times for less than 2 seconds, maybe not even one second. Doing this, as many others pointed out already, night vision would be ruined.



Oddjob said:


> I find the 0.08 lumens on my Ra lights to be more than enough with dark adapted eyes. Used mine the other night during a movie to read something and not bother the people next to me.


 


Theatre Booth Guy said:


> One of the reasons that I keep buying HDS / Ra lights is the option of setting the turn on to a very dim low - 0.07 lumen with 1.1 lumen only a double click away. When I wake up in the middle of the night, the 0.07 lumen is more than enough to light a room with ceiling bounce.
> 
> Not only is this easier on my eyes but also has no risk of waking my wife! The 1.1 lumen is great for when I'm turning off the lights and heading to bed after working the late shifts and my eyes have not adjusted yet.


 
Now I am sorry if I'm going off topic here but since I saw these two posts and my next purchase will be a light with moonlight mode (I am now considering Zebra and Ra lights), from what I've seen, Ra models only go down to 0.3 lumens. I just rechecked their website. Yet these two CPFers speak of 0.07 and 0.08. Is that an old model? Can you enlighten me on that please? Thank you


----------



## Petersen (Apr 6, 2010)

The Ra's can be programmed to other levels.
Think the 0.07 in for the 140 lum ver. and 0.08 is for the 170

I own the Novatac 120 which is similar in the Firmware, and the 0.08 lum is really bright - all depending on the ambient light.





druidmars said:


> Now I am sorry if I'm going off topic here but since I saw these two posts and my next purchase will be a light with moonlight mode (I am now considering Zebra and Ra lights), from what I've seen, Ra models only go down to 0.3 lumens. I just rechecked their website. Yet these two CPFers speak of 0.07 and 0.08. Is that an old model? Can you enlighten me on that please? Thank you


----------



## dirtech (Apr 6, 2010)

All the time to read at night without disturbing my wife.


----------



## Cataract (Apr 6, 2010)

As a techician repairing film processors, I NEED a light with 0.2 lumen. I got 2 quarks AA just for that and can't live without them. Some of the operators leave a bunch of film lying around the dark room, so I can't ever turn the lights on without asking first. Since some of my customers are so busy and I could have to wait minutes to have the lights turned on for a 10 second operation, it's much faster to bring out the low low. 

I even went as far as asking one of the operators to do a test to see if my light could affect film, given the normal parameters of how I use it. He went out, asked someone to shoot an unreferenced film (they do X-ray inspection of airplane parts), laid it on the counter and I went along doing what I would normally do using my 0.2 lumen. Once the film was processed, we asked one of the top inspection engineers to view the film and tell us if he saw any difference, and he couldn't see any, even after we told him what we did. 

I've been using my quark on low low ever since, saving well over an hour of waiting time per day (I use it carefuly and don't point it straight at film, mind you) and saving everyone precious time and money and getting home a lot earlier after work!

... I can't live without 0.2 lumen anymore!


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Apr 6, 2010)

I think the old HDS EDCs are pretty useful for many things at 0.08 L output. Part of it (as others have noted about other lights) is it's tightish beam shape. *Many* complained that it was too tight for them in the early threads when they first came out.

I for one feel that the tight HDS lights are a bit too bright at 0.08 L for *mesopic* use, which for me usually occurs after only about ten minutes with my eyes closed.


----------



## KingCanada (Apr 6, 2010)

I have never seen 0.2 lumens, but I know that when I need very little light, I use my cell phone as it happens to be on me WAY more than a flashlight does.

To be honest, I can find my way around my house well enough that I don't need a light to use the bathroom at night, if i'm elsewhere, my cell phone will suffice. 

I can actually fire up a 150+ lumen light no problem after waking up, it just takes a little common sense to not shine it right where you are looking.


----------



## LumaNaughty (Apr 6, 2010)

I used the .2 lumen on my Quark 123^2 when going into the bedroom when my wife is sleeping. I have to make sure to turn it on before entering the room in case I get a pre-flash. I had it pre-flash on me when in the bedroom and woke-up/pissed off my wife with a flash of 200+ lumens.


----------



## pipspeak (Apr 6, 2010)

the Quark moonlight mode is actually pretty bright in a pitch-black room, which is where I use it most to avoid tripping over the crap I leave lying on the floor


----------



## fisk-king (Apr 6, 2010)

whats the low level like on a Surefire Titan? Is it lower than the Ra? I wonder if this should be my first Surefire








edit: wow, it has the lowest output out there but couldn't find an exact lumen output


----------



## Superorb (Apr 6, 2010)

I've been having trouble locating a P60 drop-in with a LOW low mode on 1x18650. Do they exist?


----------



## kaichu dento (Apr 7, 2010)

fisk-king said:


> whats the low level like on a Surefire Titan? Is it lower than the Ra? I wonder if this should be my first Surefire
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't know what the actually output would be, but it's so low you can look at the emitter in the dark next to the Ra and if the Titan was akin to taillights, the Ra would be headlights, and that's comparing their lowest available settings. 

The Ra on low is incredibly bright once your eyes are adapted, but the Titan is still too low to walk by, but just right for looking at something in your hand without being blinded. Same goes for the T1A, which has a detent when you turn it off that feels really nice and gives affirmation that you're on the lowest setting when you turn it on, without having to check, as I sometimes do with my Titan.


----------



## rastaman (Apr 7, 2010)

i bought my Quarks because of the very low low. the very low low is very useful for me.


----------



## druidmars (Apr 7, 2010)

Petersen said:


> The Ra's can be programmed to other levels.
> Think the 0.07 in for the 140 lum ver. and 0.08 is for the 170
> 
> I own the Novatac 120 which is similar in the Firmware, and the 0.08 lum is really bright - all depending on the ambient light.


 
Do you know if the "*Ra Clicky Every Day Carry Executive Torch*" 120lumens follows the same rule? That's the model I was aiming to buy


----------



## Beacon of Light (Apr 7, 2010)

I've posted this several times and wondered why 47's or some other manufacturer haven't run with this idea.

.02 lumen Dark Side of the Moon mode

.2 lumen Moon mode

2 lumen High mode

DONE!

The purpose of this light is supreme run-time and also the best and lowest low in a useable light that doesn't need a bazilllion lumens. 

I guess when I get my Novatec 85E I'll be able to do something similar but I cringe at the thought of having to use RCR123 cells now for that light.

Anyhow with 4 modes mine will probably be:

.3 low low

.5 low

.75 medium

1 or 2 lumen for the high

I pretty much have my Jetbeam Jet I-Pro I.B.S. V.2.0 to 

2 lumen low

4 lumen medium

5-6 lumen high

I mainly use the low (minimum) on the Jetbeam and that is generally way too bright for me but I love the UI of the light. I just wish I could make it 10% dimmer to .2 lumen .4 lumen and .75 lumen high.


----------



## parnass (Apr 7, 2010)

Beacon of Light said:


> I've posted this several times and wondered why 47's or some other manufacturer haven't run with this idea.
> 
> .02 lumen Dark Side of the Moon mode ....



According to this info, a Pyralis firefly emits 1/40th of a lumen (0.025 lumens).


----------



## kaichu dento (Apr 7, 2010)

Beacon of Light said:


> I've posted this several times and wondered why 47's or some other manufacturer haven't run with this idea.
> 
> .02 lumen Dark Side of the Moon mode
> 
> ...


I'd love to have one of those Darkside models, but 4 levels with a top of 20 lumens for when you need it would be great. Like you, I seldom use my higher settings at night except to do comparisons and for walking, low-lows rule!


----------



## andyw513 (Apr 7, 2010)

If I was using it to read by for, let's say, camping, then I would probably need and use 0.2L. 

Perhaps it was made in mind of military or covert usage where giving your position away trying to read a map would prove to be a bad mistake.


----------



## fisk-king (Apr 7, 2010)

andyw513 said:


> ......
> 
> Perhaps it was made in mind of military or covert usage where giving your position away trying to read a map would prove to be a bad mistake.


 


I totally agree.


----------



## Gatsby (Apr 7, 2010)

Add me to the low low fan group - I regularly use my .08 setting on my Novatac to navigate about the house at night after the wife and kids are in bed. Plenty of light to see where I'm going. I also use the low setting on my Creemator for the same purposes.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Apr 7, 2010)

Moonlight mode on the Quark is plenty bright for dark adjusted eyes. I wish the MiNi had a moonlight mode since I actually prefer it to the standard Quark. I need to figure out a way to fit a neutral density filter on the front to cut down on output (although 3 lumens isn't exactly blindingly bright, especially with a large hot spot).


----------



## fannin (Apr 7, 2010)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> I just received my D10 from one nice cpfer. I am very fond of the low low which is ~3 lumen. With 3 lumen I can still see, but not too good. Close up reading is perfect with 3 lumen... But I don't think I can use the .2 lumen provided by Quark or other flashlight with low low...
> 
> How many of you guys/gals use the .2 lumen? I don't think I can walk around the room/house with .2 lumen, can you?


my d10 is just a little too bright on it's lowest setting for using when i wake up in the middle of the night, it hurts my eyes, so i would welcome a lower mode than this


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Apr 7, 2010)

I am using either the level 5 or 6 (0.28 or 0.39 lumens) for low with my Ra Hi CRI, and with night adjusted eyes it is more than enough to see around the house, even with some low ambient light. Almost too bright to read closeup.

Bill


----------



## kaichu dento (Apr 7, 2010)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> Moonlight mode on the Quark is plenty bright for dark adjusted eyes. I wish the MiNi had a moonlight mode since I actually prefer it to the standard Quark. I need to figure out a way to fit a neutral density filter on the front to cut down on output (although 3 lumens isn't exactly blindingly bright, especially with a large hot spot).


I like your idea and I might try some neutral window tint film to see how that does. It'll also lower the high, but it's usually the low end of a lights output that I'm unhappy with and most of my lights have way more than enough on the high end.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Sep 8, 2010)

Sorry, I totally forgot about this thread until I read another .2 lumen thread.



fannin said:


> my d10 is just a little too bright on it's lowest setting for using when i wake up in the middle of the night, it hurts my eyes, so i would welcome a lower mode than this


 
I am surprised your D10 is bright. I compared the D10 with my Mini AA. The low setting on the Mini AA blows my D10 low mode out of the water.


----------



## chanjyj (Sep 8, 2010)

Dude Dudeson said:


> In another lifetime I used light levels that low to see things within 12 inches of my face without giving away my position. It was not military service, but I imagine military guys might use such levels (for similar purposes) as well.



Used a L torch taped up with black duct tape and a hole poked in the centre with a needle.

How many lumens I have no idea since I never ever want to go to such a low again. With the onset of night vision (and IR lights) low lows are getting redundant.

Then again, I think I would still prefer the L torch taped up in the real world. It's easier to hold when you're crawling around on your belly


----------



## ishmael (Sep 8, 2010)

Probably my most used light because of that low low. I find it great (could be a bit lower) for getting up at night without blasting myself too awake to go back to bed. Also perfect for checking the baby without making her eyes scrunch up from a higher output and as previously mentioned, when your eyes are dark adjusted it is actually quite bright. In fact, were I to find myself on a two way range I would think it too bright to use at night without a red filter at least and even then I would probably want a poncho over my head, the light, and whatever I was looking at.


----------



## chanjyj (Sep 8, 2010)

Beacon of Light said:


> I've posted this several times and wondered why 47's or some other manufacturer haven't run with this idea.
> 
> .02 lumen Dark Side of the Moon mode
> 
> ...



How large is their target market, and is it worth the cost?


----------



## kaichu dento (Sep 8, 2010)

chanjyj said:


> How large is their target market, and is it worth the cost?


Pretty small, but if they priced it accordingly there would be buyers enough to make it worthwhile.
Just a couple years ago there was a large number of members here incredulous at the idea that anyone could find use for less than 2lumens, but it's not hard to find people who wish for a lower low than the .07-.08 of the Ra/HDS/Novatac lights.

If you don't want one then please don't buy one, but if it sounds interesting then help us get it made.


----------



## MikeE (Sep 8, 2010)

The only time I use a low mode is to save my batteries. I am a big fan of efficiency, which is increased by both higher performance and lower energy use. I like it bright and cheap, that is my goal. I do see a need for low levels to maintain stealth, but once my night vision has kicked in I enjoy finding my way around in the dark. I don't use a light to find the bathroom at night. This is not to say that it can't be too bright, I am also a big fan of sunglasses.


----------



## pmek5 (Sep 8, 2010)

Beacon of Light said:


> I've posted this several times and wondered why 47's or some other manufacturer haven't run with this idea.
> 
> .02 lumen Dark Side of the Moon mode
> 
> ...


 
*Brilliant!* (no pun intended)+1 on that also. As a low/low/low enthusiast, I would use a flashlight like that quite a bit I suspect.


----------



## chanjyj (Sep 8, 2010)

kaichu dento said:


> Pretty small, but if they priced it accordingly there would be buyers enough to make it worthwhile.
> Just a couple years ago there was a large number of members here incredulous at the idea that anyone could find use for less than 2lumens, but it's not hard to find people who wish for a lower low than the .07-.08 of the Ra/HDS/Novatac lights.
> 
> If you don't want one then please don't buy one, but if it sounds interesting then help us get it made.



Let's just assume the entire market is CPF, and only CPF.
Let's also take the liberty of assuming that ALL CPF-ers will purchase the light (which obviously, they wont).

I see a potential profit margin if up to 75% of the members purchase the light. Anything else - I don't think it's worth it.

This is assuming we want the price of the light to be "normal".


----------



## tre (Sep 8, 2010)

I love <1 lumen mode. My quark moonlights modes and my Zebralight low modes are all < 1 lumen. When I get out of bed in the dark, 3 or 4 lumens is WAY too bright while < 1 lumen is perfect. I used the omonlight mode of my quark 123 for a nightlight in my daughters room when our power was out for 48 hours. The bigger question is, "how can you not have a light with a .2 lumen mode"?


----------



## NCT1 (Sep 8, 2010)

The only time I use this is late at night, when my eyes have adjusted, otherwise I always skip over it and move to a brighter setting.


----------



## kyhunter1 (Sep 8, 2010)

Yes. Very helpful to navigate the house at night while everybody :tired:, and not get this... :scowl:. .....:whoopin:....... I keep my Quark tactical set to Max/Moonmode. They are the most useful to me.


----------



## kaichu dento (Sep 9, 2010)

chanjyj said:


> Let's just assume the entire market is CPF, and only CPF.
> Let's also take the liberty of assuming that ALL CPF-ers will purchase the light (which obviously, they wont).
> 
> I see a potential profit margin if up to 75% of the members purchase the light. Anything else - I don't think it's worth it.
> ...


How about if we just assume that some of us would like to see it happen and that you're not interested.


----------



## fyrstormer (Sep 9, 2010)

I asked this question myself when I first arrived. It made no sense to me.

When I went camping in July, I was in the middle of the Jefferson National Forest and there was no moonlight. My Sapphire (~10 lumens) was blinding; I had to shine it through my shirt to dim it down so I wouldn't ruin my night vision. 0.2 lumens would be useful in those conditions.


----------



## black_ice_pc (Sep 9, 2010)

I use my .2 lumen on my Quark Turbo, although I would have to say the 4 lumen mode probably gets used more. But for seeing near people sleeping etc, .2 lumen is quite handy.


----------



## DHart (Sep 9, 2010)

Those who haven't used lights with SUPER low lows in dark situations probably don't realize that .2 lumens is PLENTY of light under dark circumstances. 

I think the Quark's .2 lumens is as bright as the moonlight mode should ever be. And it is PLENTY useful at .2 lumens. Too bad so few light manufacturers realize the value of .2 lumens!

Thank you, David, for recognizing the great value of just .2 lumens!


----------



## Henk_Lu (Sep 9, 2010)

I mostly USE my lights by night in the house, to go to the bathroom or the kitchen.

One of these evening, after having tried out most of my powerfull flashlight, those in the 400 to 1.200 Lumen range, I stood in the dark before my showcase with the LF2XT on Low (probably under 1 Lumen?), which I use always at night. Well, I illuminated the same part of the living room I also use for testing the powerlights and I wondered what else than the wow-effect these lights actually serve me...

Don't get me wrong, I don't tell anybody here that the lowest Low is enough in any circumstances, but setting my LF2XT to high (70 Lumen?) inside the house at night is more than enough light for every purpose while Low is even too much for night adapted eyes (I also wish I could switch off that damn light in the fridge!!!)

So, I really love moonmode or whatever manufacturers call their lowest Low, more lights should have it, at least those designed to serve indoors. Going on a forest walk at night, you don't need such a low mode. Henry from HDS says that not enough light is dangerous and too much light costs unnecessary battery power (and can be uncomfortable). Most people would be surprised how low the exact level of light you NEED actually is...


----------



## fareast (Sep 9, 2010)

Henk_Lu said:


> ...(I also wish I could switch off that damn light in the fridge!!!)
> ...



You can, if you are lucky: just put a piece of tape over the switchhttp://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=...=1&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0&biw=821&bih=783. In my fridge the light is operated via a very simple mechanical switch (http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=...=1&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0&biw=821&bih=783). Pressed in (door closed) it's off, door opens, switch is released and lamp switches on. If I were to press the switch by hand: it goes off and on. 

Of course I don't know if every fridge uses such a system but you never know!


----------



## Henk_Lu (Sep 9, 2010)

fareast said:


> You can, if you are lucky: just put a piece of tape over the switch. In my fridge the light is operated via a very simple mechanical switch (http://www.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://www.espares.co.uk/datastore/ProductImages/750696.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.espares.co.uk/part/fridges-and-freezers/bosch/p/1084/856/0/0/653499/refrigerator-light-switch.html&usg=__fLncqGF1dpR09dVem-gVLzrJR44=&h=500&w=500&sz=69&hl=nl&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=3_IVSfZB_CHB2M:&tbnh=154&tbnw=158&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfridge%2Blightswitch%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dnl%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GBfficial%26biw%3D821%26bih%3D783%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C232&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=301&vpy=28&dur=1763&hovh=225&hovw=225&tx=146&ty=195&ei=DqyITMG_IsuUOJeFvJ0O&oei=DqyITMG_IsuUOJeFvJ0O&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0&biw=821&bih=783). Pressed in (door closed) it's off, door opens, switch is released and lamp switches on. If I were to press the switch by hand: it goes off and on.
> 
> Of course I don't know if every fridge uses such a system but you never know!



I surely can tweak the switch, but I'd need a system to turn it off from the outside, just when I open the fridge at night. My wife would not be happy if the light's out and if she must remove a piece of tape first, she surely won't put it back afterwards...

The fridge-light should have a moon-mode working by night only! :devil:


----------



## Swedpat (Sep 9, 2010)

Quark 123 and AA2 have the lowest mode of all my flashlights. 0,2lumens is very low output. But I could make use of much dimmer than so. Reading a text at very close distance, no doubt that I could do it also with 1/10 of that brightness. When one doesn't want to make attention or destroy the night vision these low low modes are very good.


----------



## Beampower (Sep 9, 2010)

The Quark Ti 123 and the Zebralight HC30 and very useful on 0,3 Lumen Moonlight Mode when my wife feeds the Baby! Perfect:thumbsup:


----------



## andyw513 (Sep 9, 2010)

I've been carrying my Quark WARM with an 18650 body and I use Low-Low more than I use any other mode. It's beyond helpful at night for reading, and it comes in handy for pretty much everything. Also, I got a Zebralight M60 recently with the .5 lumen Low-Low, and have found it to be equally as helpful.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Sep 9, 2010)

Dang. I think I am missing out.


----------



## fyrstormer (Sep 9, 2010)

You know, another option is to just remove the lightbulb from the fridge, or put a dimmer bulb in it.


----------



## wyager (Sep 9, 2010)

I use it every night. It's just right so that the reflection won't destroy your night vision. There's plenty of light pollution here, but in a darker place I would want even lower.


----------



## emzimmerman (Sep 9, 2010)

I've got my Quark AA2 tactical set up with max (206 lumens) on first position and low (4 lumens) on second position. 

It sits next to the bed on high. Great for checking out bumps in the night. When I need the light to look for something or futz around in the wee hours of the morning, I use the low. It's just right.

The other day I tried out the moonlight mode. Useless to me. Not enough light, couldn't see anything. I admit, I live in the city and our apartment is not cave-like dark. But the moon mode allowed me to see a dim spot and nothing else.

Won't buy a light based on it's ultra-low moon mode. But as long as it has other features I can use, then sure. But I'm thinking right now that Quarks' 4 lumens is about as low as I can usefully go in my life.

That is, until I get a Preon Revo (SS? Ti?) and check out it's 1.5 lumen low. 

Eric


----------



## leeholaaho (Sep 9, 2010)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> I just received my D10 from one nice cpfer. I am very fond of the low low which is ~3 lumen. With 3 lumen I can still see, but not too good. Close up reading is perfect with 3 lumen... But I don't think I can use the .2 lumen provided by Quark or other flashlight with low low...
> 
> How many of you guys/gals use the .2 lumen? I don't think I can walk around the room/house with .2 lumen, can you?



I use it all the time in the middle of the night, with night vision .2 lumens lights up the whole room. Perfect - 3 lumens would be blinding for the first 30 seconds anyway!!


----------



## iqwozpoom (Sep 9, 2010)

Surpisingly, to me at least, yes. Great for digging around without causing a "light show". Also great for looking for things in the kid's eyes. I actually use it a lot more than I thought I would.


----------



## Tally-ho (Sep 10, 2010)

emzimmerman said:


> The other day I tried out the moonlight mode. Useless to me. Not enough light, couldn't see anything. I admit, I live in the city and our apartment is not cave-like dark. But the moon mode allowed me to see a dim spot and nothing else.


:fail:

(Kidding...but)

Maybe you need to go out of your city sometimes.
Being surrounded by nature during a quiet dark night, playing with low and very low-low for outdoor activities is nice. Well, some people are more "urban" than others and prefer "concrete more than chlorophyll", no problem...anyone is different, but you are missing something.


----------



## Superorb (Sep 10, 2010)

Why don't we just get someone to make a P60 dropin that has a super low mode so people can use whatever host they'd like? I know I'd buy at least 4 dropins to fill all my hosts.

0.2l, 4L, 20L, 100L would be perfect. And if they could do it with an XP-G all the better.


----------



## Tomcat! (Sep 10, 2010)

Yes. I have a Novatac 120P on permanent nightstand duty, set to come on lowest mode first. It's perfect for fully dark adapted eyes, but you must have a diffuser to make it actually useful, otherwise the spill disappears and all you're left with is a small hotspot which isn't big enough to be practical. The diffuser gives a much more useable ball of light by which you can actually identify hazards aroung the house rather than getting tunnel vision and tripping over them.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 10, 2010)

Find myself using my RA 140 on .3 lumens all the time for all sorts of things.

Checking on the cats or for dimly lighting the room when pulling around a photoluminous glow marker on a string for them to play with.

Checking the time in the middle of the night.

Finding my way around the house at night.

Reading without waking my Bride (very very important, that one is :sleepy:  :duh2: :tsk:  ).

Reading menus in dark restaraunts.

Ect. ect... you get the idea :thumbsup:


----------



## tnathletics2b (Sep 10, 2010)

I use my Quark RGB on .2 lumen red to go check on my 4 month old daughter when she makes a funny noise over the monitor. I can see her perfectly, but she will never wake up from the light...


----------



## guiri (Sep 10, 2010)

Superorb said:


> Why don't we just get someone to make a P60 dropin that has a super low mode so people can use whatever host they'd like? I know I'd buy at least 4 dropins to fill all my hosts.
> 
> 0.2l, 4L, 20L, 100L would be perfect. And if they could do it with an XP-G all the better.



I personally don't have any hosts for them but I like the idea


----------



## edc3 (Sep 10, 2010)

I used to use .2 lumens, but not anymore. Now I use .07 lumens. It's definitely enough for getting around my house in the middle of the night. Until I used the moon mode on my first Quark I never realized how useful a low, low is. To each his own, but I wouldn't want to be without a sub 1 lumen light.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Sep 11, 2010)

leeholaaho said:


> with night vision .2 lumens lights up the whole room.



Really? Ceiling bounce or diffuser?


----------



## Vesper (Sep 11, 2010)

It makes a perfect night light. Sat in my daughter's room all night the last time she was sick w/ a stomach bug. :sick2:


----------



## aldagoods (Sep 11, 2010)

I have used the .3 lumen on my novatac 120P nightly for the last few years. And, when I am out of the house and camping on moonless nights [away from city ambient light], It's a helluva lot of light. That compared to a 2 lumen nitecore extreme -- the 2 lumen is total overkill. Amazing how little light the eye really needs.


----------



## pae77 (Sep 11, 2010)

I use the 0.6 lumen low low mode (~22 day runtime) on my Zebralight SC50w+ as a night light (ceiling bounce). I usually leave it on 0.6 lumen bouncing off the ceiling all night. Once my eyes are night adapted, it surprising how much it lights up my small bedroom, yet without disturbing anyone. I don't think I need anything lower than that level, however.

When I need a bit more light, I like to toggle it to its higher low mode (4.4 lumen, ~4 day runtime) which seems really bright by comparison to 0.6, but neither of those low modes mess up my night vision.

Those two low modes seem to me to be set at very appropriate lumen levels and are both really useful to me.


----------



## bbb74 (Sep 12, 2010)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> Really? Ceiling bounce or diffuser?



I use 0.2 lumens on my quark, ceiling bounce, when dealing with my kids in the middle of the night. Its enough light to be able to put a nappy on without disturbing then. Not enouch light with ceiling bounce to deal with a pooey one, but for a quick wet nappy change its great.

Sorry for the gorey details


----------



## iacchus (Sep 12, 2010)

All the friggin time! One example: 

The wife and I were out walking a few nights ago, and I was using my Ra to light the way. I mentioned I needed to lower the lowest setting some, and she asked what good that could possibly be.

The same night, I used my Quark 123 moon mode to check on our 10 month old daughter, lighting her up completely, but not enough light to wake her up. 

She said..."Oh, that is helpful"


----------



## Superorb (Sep 12, 2010)

guiri said:


> I personally don't have any hosts for them but I like the idea


Solarforce P60 hosts are cheap, around $13 shipped for a complete (minus dropin) solution.


----------



## batmanacw (Sep 12, 2010)

When I first got my Ra clicky I thought that I would never use the .33 lumen factory low setting. Then I tried it with light adjusted eyes, and now I love it. In fact, I just reprogrammed it for .1 lumens on low. The .08 lumen setting was just a little too low for me, but not bad. 

Does anyone know if you can change the battery in my Ra clicky without needing to reprogram it?


----------



## wyager (Sep 12, 2010)

batmanacw said:


> Does anyone know if you can change the battery in my Ra clicky without needing to reprogram it?



I think if you do it fast. I'm not sure if the soft reset gets rid of all your settings, but if it does just change the battery quickly.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Sep 12, 2010)

wyager said:


> I think if you do it fast. I'm not sure if the soft reset gets rid of all your settings, but if it does just change the battery quickly.



Take your time changing battery. You will not lose your settings.

Bill


----------



## wyager (Sep 12, 2010)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Take your time changing battery. You will not lose your settings.
> 
> Bill



OK thanks :nana:
I wasn't so sure, I couldn't find the difference between a normal and factory reset in the manual.


----------



## batmanacw (Sep 12, 2010)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Take your time changing battery. You will not lose your settings.
> 
> Bill



Thanks. Just for giggles I tried if after your confirmation and you are absolutely correct.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Sep 12, 2010)

wyager said:


> OK thanks :nana:
> I wasn't so sure, I couldn't find the difference between a normal and factory reset in the manual.



I have my Hi CRI set for low, medium low, and medium, + burst 100%. Pulled out battery for 2 minutes and reinserted battery. No changes to my settings.

Bill


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Sep 13, 2010)

Alright. I am going to use my D10 on the lowest setting and unplug my night light and see can I move around tomorrow night.


----------



## DHart (Sep 13, 2010)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> Alright. I am going to use my D10 on the lowest setting and unplug my night light and see can I move around tomorrow night.



The D10 on its lowest setting is quite noticibly brighter than the Quark's .2 lumens... you'll have no problems seeing your way around if your eyes are night adapted. Even with the Quark at .2 lumens, that's enough light to see your way around.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Sep 13, 2010)

I have my high CRI Ra Clicky set up to give me 0.07 lumen as the default setting which I find to be plenty bright when my eyes are dark adapted. I have no problem avoiding the ever changing obstacles of children's toys and sewing machines.


----------



## guardpost3 (Sep 13, 2010)

I have both of my Ra clickys programmed to come on in 0.07lm, I use that setting as much or more than max brightness. It is perfect for reading or finding things in my patrol car at night.


----------



## EZO (Sep 13, 2010)

I'm a big fan of very low output modes in flashlights. My girlfriend dropped her keys at the movie theater and a bright light would have been distracting to everyone else around us as I looked under the seat. Worked great to have plenty of light, but not too much and I could see what I was looking for. I can also fish around on the shelf next to the bed in the middle of the night without disturbing said girlfriend. You'd be amazed at what you can see at .2 lumens. Most Quarks are great with their .2 lumen output. Wish my Quark Mini CR2 had .2 lumen output rather than 3 lumens for the low.


----------



## Blades (Sep 13, 2010)

I have my HDS Ra 170 set to its lowest(.08 lumens according to the chart) and use it more then I thought I would. I set it to try it out, thinking it wouldn't be useful, but I have left it there. I can always change it if needed.


----------



## Wiseguyzz_Inc_ (Sep 13, 2010)

I guess if true night vision preservation is necessary you would use 0.2 lumens..... Per MIL-1472D true night vision conservation illumination is <0.05 lumens


----------



## DHart (Sep 13, 2010)

EZO said:


> You'd be amazed at what you can see at .2 lumens.



So true.


----------



## kaichu dento (Sep 14, 2010)

Wiseguyzz_Inc_ said:


> Per MIL-1472D true night vision conservation illumination is <0.05 lumens


Then that's what I wish were available on all programmable lights, although I've often guessed that what I'd be happy with would be closer to .02, based on the present .08 I have on my Clicky.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Sep 14, 2010)

pmek5 said:


> *Brilliant!* (no pun intended)+1 on that also. As a low/low/low enthusiast, I would use a flashlight like that quite a bit I suspect.



maybe some day this will be a reality. Runtime will be spectacular as you can imagine and it will be the ultimate survival light.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Sep 14, 2010)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> You use .3 lumen outdoor? Wow...



I use my Novatac at .08 lumens outdoors. Still wish there was lower lows than that without having to buy a $500+ Titan :devil:


----------



## Vesper (Sep 14, 2010)

Superorb said:


> Why don't we just get someone to make a P60 dropin that has a super low mode so people can use whatever host they'd like? I know I'd buy at least 4 dropins to fill all my hosts.
> 
> 0.2l, 4L, 20L, 100L would be perfect. And if they could do it with an XP-G all the better.



YES PLEASE! I looked and looked for such a thing. Only thing sort of close was Malkoff LL in a MD w/ his hi/lo option. I would LOVE a dropin like you described.


----------



## SixM (Sep 14, 2010)

Vesper said:


> YES PLEASE! I looked and looked for such a thing. Only thing sort of close was Malkoff LL in a MD w/ his hi/lo option. I would LOVE a dropin like you described.




I have this SKU 17593 from DX in my G2. The lowest setting is a moonmode that is comparable to the moonmode on my Quark Turbo.


----------



## scout24 (Sep 14, 2010)

Beacon- T1A same levels/ UI as Ti Titan, but runs CR123's PM me your address and I'll send you one to try for a few days. Picked up my last one on CPFMP for $150.00...


----------



## red02 (Sep 14, 2010)

SixM said:


> I have this SKU 17593 from DX in my G2. The lowest setting is a moonmode that is comparable to the moonmode on my Quark Turbo.



Looks nice, a little too nice... I saw the different current draw rates on the DX page, but that could just be current draw due to lower PWM. 

Any idea if its current controlled? 

Does your G2 head screw down the entire way?


----------



## SixM (Sep 14, 2010)

red02 said:


> Looks nice, a little too nice... I saw the different current draw rates on the DX page, but that could just be current draw due to lower PWM.
> 
> Any idea if its current controlled?
> 
> Does your G2 head screw down the entire way?




No idea if it's current controlled sorry, but the head does screw down all the way, with the outer spring removed.
The one I have is not 3 mode, it ramps up and you set whatever level you want.....one mode. It flashes at 5%, 50%, and 100%, two quick taps gives you Moon Mode.
This dropin isn't for everyone, it wants to ramp too easily if you hit the button wrong. Maybe in a clicky it would function differently?
I keep mine it in my GHB for the ability to go into MM for stealth and runtime, or 200+ lumens of a little throw if needed. I like it for my needs and it's under $12.

Let me add to the OP that yes.... I use .2 lumen. I have a Quark WW Turbo 123 that I love, and it's set on MM and Max. I wish all my lights had such a low setting on them.


----------



## Swedpat (Sep 14, 2010)

I tried indoors with my Quark 123 at .2 lumens mode. With dark adapted eyes I find I can easily locate in my livingroom. Even when the eyes are not dark adapted the hotspot easily reaches 10m, and I can read a book with the spill at 1 feet distance from the book, without extreme effort.
Consequently even a brightness of hundreds of times dimmer than .2 lumen would be useful at close distance under real dark conditions. And the runtime could be counted in years!


----------



## think2x (Sep 14, 2010)

I use my ultra low settings daily on my Quark, (now sold) NovaTac, and (just acquired) Ra clicky high CRI. I navigate from my bedroom to each of my kids rooms to kiss them before I leave for work in the early morning. I love the sub-lumen settings because it does not disturb them even when shining at their faces.


----------



## Superorb (Sep 15, 2010)

SixM said:


> I have this SKU 17593 from DX in my G2. The lowest setting is a moonmode that is comparable to the moonmode on my Quark Turbo.


Unfortunately it's not 3 mode


----------



## berry580 (Sep 15, 2010)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> Re: Do you really use 0.2 lumen?


YES


----------



## fisk-king (Sep 15, 2010)

I use the lowest level on my Ra Clicky for my late night trips to the bathroom. I think its ~.09lm.


----------



## B0wz3r (Sep 15, 2010)

I regularly use the moon mode on my Quark AA r2 for checking on my kids at night, making sure doors are locked, etc.

My wife is an avid amateur astronomer and we typically take her 12" dobsonian scope with us on camping trips... the moon mode is perfect for those occasions too.

I find that when there's some moonlight, it's perfect because it provides just enough light to light up dark spots or dark colored things I can't see in just the moonlight itself, but it's not any brighter than the amount of light coming from the full moon. I guess that's why they call it "moon mode".


----------



## chanjyj (Sep 26, 2010)

Outdoors, at near distances 15 lumens are enough for my *semi*-dark adapted eyes.

Indoors, once my eyes are dark adapted, 0.33 lumen on my HDS 170T is ok (beam a tad narrow though). Planning to try out 0.08 lumens tonight and see how that goes.


----------



## flatline (Sep 26, 2010)

chanjyj said:


> Outdoors, at near distances 15 lumens are enough for my *semi*-dark adapted eyes.
> 
> Indoors, once my eyes are dark adapted, 0.33 lumen on my HDS 170T is ok (beam a tad narrow though). Planning to try out 0.08 lumens tonight and see how that goes.



I've been using the 0.07L setting on my high-CRI Ra Clicky. If you're where it's truly dark with adapted eyes, it seems plenty bright.

--flatline


----------



## EZO (Sep 26, 2010)

I'm amazed now at how often I use the 0.2 lumen mode on my Quark Tactical. While I used to think of such a low setting as an interesting and possibly useful option I now consider it a "must have" when I consider the purchase of a new EDC light. I would even like having a "Super Moon Mode" of 0.1 lumen for certain applications. (Like last night when making a quick camera setting change in the dark during a radio remote controlled wildlife shoot.)


----------



## flatline (Sep 26, 2010)

EZO said:


> I'm amazed now at how often I use the 0.2 lumen mode on my Quark Tactical. While I used to think of such a low setting as an interesting and possibly useful option I now consider it a "must have" when I consider the purchase of a new EDC light. I would even like having a "Super Moon Mode" of 0.1 lumen for certain applications. (Like last night when making a quick camera setting change in the dark during a radio remote controlled wildlife shoot.)



Sounds like you'll be looking at a Ra Clicky soon.

I'm using 0.07 lumens to do my nightly walk-through before going to bed. Once your eyes adjust, it turns out that .07 seems just as bright as the default .3 lumens or the .2 lumens of my Quark.

--flatline


----------



## EZO (Sep 26, 2010)

flatline said:


> Sounds like you'll be looking at a Ra Clicky soon.
> 
> --flatline



Yeah, you nailed that one flatline, a RA Clicky has been on my wish list for awhile now. Also wondering what the lowest programmable setting is on a Liteflux2XT. It seems to usually be listed as a percentage of output rather than lumens. That damned wish list!


----------



## scout24 (Sep 26, 2010)

The SF Titan T1A goes a bunch lower than any of these... I have not used the liteflux, but my Ra Clicky's and Quarks in moonmode are BRIGHT on the lowest levels in comparison.  The wishlist gets longer...


----------



## EZO (Sep 26, 2010)

scout24 said:


> The SF Titan T1A goes a bunch lower than any of these... I have not used the liteflux, but my Ra Clicky's and Quarks in moonmode are BRIGHT on the lowest levels in comparison.



Yes scout24, that's exactly what I'm saying. Moon mode on the Quark seemed very dim when I first started using it but the more I do the brighter it seems. It's great for navigating a dark room with adjusted eyes but for close work like the camera setting changes I mentioned in my previous post it's really much brighter than needed or wanted.


----------



## scout24 (Sep 26, 2010)

EZO- see my sig line. If you wish to give a T1A a try, I should have my loaner back this week.  There's one over on CPFMP for $157.00 right now, BTW.


----------



## danf (Sep 27, 2010)

I use my 0.2 lumens all the time - close to 24/7. Since the Quake AA^2 can run around 30 days at this level, I leave it on but mostly obscured near my bed so I can see the glow in the middle of the night (if I look for it). And I usually don't need to bump up the light level for just navigating around in the dark.

I was disappointed to see that Quarks new MiNi AA line doesn't include a moon mode.


----------



## don.gwapo (Sep 27, 2010)

Nope. I always skip that mode on my preon 1 and mini cr2 and jump at high right away even it ruin my night vision at night. :naughty:. Just love that brightnes coz they are running on 10440 & rcr2. :devil:.


----------



## MK9 (Sep 27, 2010)

*.2 Lumen moonlight mode, ok, now I get it*

Hey guys,

For the past year with my Quark 2 AA I could not get the point of the 
.2 Lumen moonlight mode. Well, for the past couple weeks the wife and I have been getting up for early morning walks. Today, she got up and was making our hot morning beverage while I was still trying to wake up when my alarm went off. I grabbed that Quarkie little light, one click on and the .2 lumens lit the top of the alarm clock. More than enough for me to make out the dozen or so buttons until I saw the off button. Upon thinking of what just occurred (thinking that early is no easy feat :tired I grabbed my Fenix E01. With the light facing away from me towards the alarm clock I lit it up. It felt like someone was shining the light in my eyes.
So, now I get it.
The only thing that would have been a little nicer would be a larger hot spot.


----------



## Cataract (Sep 27, 2010)

*Re: .2 Lumen moonlight mode, ok, now I get it*

Congratulations on your recent discovery! Isn't it fun to realize your aging flashlight can do something more for you?

I use low low whenever I have to go to the bathroom at night (the nearest tree when camping) or when I'm out star gazing. I've used it plenty when hiking as well and it is more than sufficient light for a lot of basic tasks. I try to avoid the E01 at night unless I can't reach my Quark AA since it IS pretty harsh on the eyes when you wake up.

In my case, I have to repair some film processors (developping machines) and sometimes have to install a few screws in the dark room while the operators are still working, so the low low allows me to see what I'm doing wihtout risking to expose the film on the counter behind me. It's been saving me hours now that I don't have to wait for the guys to put away their films.

If you want something with a larger spot, the RGB is a real flood light, which would probably be a little easier to use for spotting buttons on the alarm clock. Otherwise, the Quark Prism has a diffuser which will do the trick.


----------



## EZO (Sep 27, 2010)

scout24 said:


> The SF Titan T1A goes a bunch lower than any of these... I have not used the liteflux, but my Ra Clicky's and Quarks in moonmode are BRIGHT on the lowest levels in comparison.



I'm a bit confused regarding your statement after checking out the specs of the T1A at Surefire's web site. If the Quark can do .2 lumens, the RA .3 lumen (or as low as .1, I believe) but the SF T1A goes down to 1.0 lumen, how can the T1A go "a bunch lower" than the Quark, etc? Does it go lower than the claimed spec?

P.S. Scout24 - Thanks for your offer, I will be in touch with you. The T1A looks like an interesting light at any rate. Kinda' pricey though, but then again, it's a SF.


----------



## chanjyj (Sep 27, 2010)

EZO said:


> I'm a bit confused regarding your statement after checking out the specs of the T1A at Surefire's web site. If the Quark can do .2 lumens, the RA .3 lumen (or as low as .1, I believe) but the SF T1A goes down to 1.0 lumen, how can the T1A go "a bunch lower" than the Quark, etc? Does it go lower than the claimed spec?
> 
> P.S. Scout24 - Thanks for your offer, I will be in touch with you. The T1A looks like an interesting light at any rate. Kinda' pricey though, but then again, it's a SF.



0.08 for my Ra 170T


----------



## EZO (Sep 27, 2010)

chanjyj said:


> 0.08 for my Ra 170T



Interesting. The HDS website shows 0.3 as the default low setting.
Is that where you have yours set, or is that as low as your unit will go?


----------



## scout24 (Sep 27, 2010)

T1A or my Ti Titan go a bunch lower than either my Clicky 120EDC, 120T, or Ti1 70, as well as nicely below any of my Quarks. 1x123 R5, 1xAA R5, and Ti 1xAA. I hadn't seen the specs on the website, but it is what it is. And, the UI is the best there is, IMHO. Maybe someone else will chime in who owns some or all...


----------



## flatline (Sep 27, 2010)

EZO said:


> Interesting. The HDS website shows 0.3 as the default low setting.
> Is that where you have yours set, or is that as low as your unit will go?



The default low is actually Level 5 (.28 lumens). Level 1 is .07 or .08 depending on which emitter you have.

--flatline


----------



## Kestrel (Sep 27, 2010)

Merging the new *".2 lumen moonlight mode"* thread with the currently-running *0.2 lumen* thread ...


----------



## EZO (Sep 27, 2010)

Hmmmn........So based on what you guys are saying that makes two very exacting, high end manufacturers that are listing approximate specs on their lights?


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Sep 27, 2010)

EZO said:


> Hmmmn........So based on what you guys are saying that makes two very exacting, high end manufacturers that are listing approximate specs on their lights?



The HDS is programmable. The default is stated, is that a problem? And the driver just pumps out amps, the emitter and reflector determine lumens.

Anyway, LED and other part variances alone account for differences. If you don't re-examine each light to calibrate it, you'll have variation.


----------



## scout24 (Sep 27, 2010)

Lowest level beamshots of my collective group as stated above this evening when I get home... :thumbsup: Gives me an excuse to break out the Ti Clicky and fire it up...


----------



## EZO (Sep 27, 2010)

AnAppleSnail said:


> The HDS is programmable. The default is stated, is that a problem? And the driver just pumps out amps, the emitter and reflector determine lumens.
> 
> Anyway, LED and other part variances alone account for differences. If you don't re-examine each light to calibrate it, you'll have variation.



No, it's certainly not a problem, just wondered why the stated defaults apparently are not the defaults even if they are programmable. And I thought HDS lights _were_ calibrated.


----------



## John_Galt (Sep 27, 2010)

Wiseguyzz_Inc_ said:


> I guess if true night vision preservation is necessary you would use 0.2 lumens..... Per MIL-1472D true night vision conservation illumination is <0.05 lumens




Wouldn't lux have something to do with that, as well? My 0.07 on my Ra is pretty bright, but add a layer of matte scotch tape for some diffusion, and it appears much dimmer.
---
Kind of a bad example above as I'm not sure how much the scotch tape reduces output...
---
But back to my main point, 0.05 lumens in a tight hotspot would be worse for night vision preservation than 0.07/8 lumens diffused.


----------



## Lucciola (Sep 27, 2010)

IMHO the moonlight mode of the quarks is wonderful and I use it a lot.

Actually I further reduced the output by adding the quark prism with the diffusor to my AA² tactical.

That way I keep it on my bedside table with the prism turned against the ceiling for a ceiling bounce.

The light is still enough to find my way to the bathroom and I find it very comfortable when waking up at night, especially as I use a neutral white quark. The dim light thrown back from the ceiling is like a warm blanket. 

Before the quark I used an Ansmann ENL-1 plug-in nightlight with 4 5mm LEDs turned against the ceiling. That was way too bright.

The Quark with the diffusor doesn't even hurt when looking directly into the light. Clear thumbs up from me! :thumbsup:

I wish more lights would have a moonmode and when buying a new light in the future I will certainly take a closer look at the lowest setting rather than just at the highest output.

Lucciola


----------



## Echo63 (Sep 27, 2010)

I use a t1a on minimum for midnight toilet breaks.
It is perfect for that "just woke up and eyes are super sensitive to light" type scenario

My novatac goes pretty low too, but it's low doesn't get used as much, as the Titan is always around my neck, and easier to access

I seem to carry a few different lights, my titan for it's low low, and because it is easy to carry, and always there.
A novatac for general utility, and a oveready 9P with a moddoo neutral triple as my "WTF was that?" light


----------



## kaichu dento (Sep 27, 2010)

EZO said:


> I'm a bit confused regarding your statement after checking out the specs of the T1A at Surefire's web site. If the Quark can do .2 lumens, the RA .3 lumen (or as low as .1, I believe) but the SF T1A goes down to 1.0 lumen, how can the T1A go "a bunch lower" than the Quark, etc? Does it go lower than the claimed spec?
> 
> P.S. Scout24 - Thanks for your offer, I will be in touch with you. The T1A looks like an interesting light at any rate. Kinda' pricey though, but then again, it's a SF.


The 1 lumen rating for the T1A or original Titan is waaaaaaaayyyyy off. Either one of them will go many times lower than any Quark or HDS light and as far as I know, only Data's 005/007/Tri-V will go lower.

If you get a T1A you're probably going to find it to be a nice, unique addition to your lineup.


----------



## EZO (Sep 27, 2010)

kaichu dento said:


> The 1 lumen rating for the T1A or original Titan is waaaaaaaayyyyy off. Either one of them will go many times lower than any Quark or HDS light and as far as I know, only Data's 005/007/Tri-V will go lower.
> 
> If you get a T1A you're probably going to find it to be a nice, unique addition to your lineup.



Thank you, and to scout24 as well for clarifying my question.


----------



## scout24 (Sep 27, 2010)

Alright... Here is the lineup of my current lights that claim a Low Low level- Some may find certain ones more useful than others, some are floody, some are more throwy... All are on lithium primaries, all are as low as they will go. Left to right, Ti Ra clicky, Ra 120edc clicky, Ra 120 tactical, Quark 1xAA R5, Ti Quark 1xAA, Quark 1x123R5 which is almost 19 days into a moonlight mode runtime test, by the way. Talk about regulation!!! SF Titan T1A, SF Titan Ti with a High CRI Seoul P4 emitter, thanks to JHanko.  Second pic, I had to move the Titans within about 1" of the vertical paper, they were just washed out otherwise. EDC120, 120T, and the long running 1x123 Quark R5 next to the Titans.


----------



## wyager (Sep 27, 2010)

AnAppleSnail said:


> Anyway, LED and other part variances alone account for differences. If you don't re-examine each light to calibrate it, you'll have variation.



HDS lights are individually calibrated IIRC.


----------



## SoCalDep (Sep 27, 2010)

When I worked nights I used moonlight on my 1xAA Quark Tactical all the time for reading and correcting reports. I have my Quark set to highest/lowest and I'm very happy.


----------



## EZO (Sep 27, 2010)

Great beam shots scout24! Now I can see exactly what you are talking about. Thanks for doing this.

Somebody ought to show this to Surefire and ask about that 1.0 lumen minimum spec.

Love the way all the different tints look together.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 27, 2010)

Well the lowest output commercial light I own is the Jetbeam Jet3M (2Lm), seeking a lower low I reconfigured a CR123a MTE light (as seen in the battery Vampire thread) to run on 5mm LEDs thus I can achieve sub 2Lm with a heavily resistored 2-stage tailcap (and virtually depleted CR123a cells) 

Is my version of an ultra low-low around 0.2Lm? without a light meter I can't be certain (and utilized cells vary in residual voltage) but I'd bet It's well in the ballpark, the fact that I've done it with a non-white light source simply makes it more "useful" for me :thumbsup:





*N/B - _Underexposed to highlight output difference_


----------



## EZO (Sep 28, 2010)

Although Surefire lists the T1A specs at 1.0 -70 lumen, I see that some vendors, (Gander Mountain as one example) list 0 - 70 lumens which I now see is the accurate description.

Somebody here mentioned using the Quark prism attachment with diffuser to lower the perceived output at the .2 lumen setting so I tried this last night and it sure does work, kind of a poor man's alternative to a T1A, I guess. And I think not having a hot spot could be useful at that output depending on how one is using their light, plus if you suddenly decide you want the hot spot you could just yank off the prism attachment.

Also, without the diffuser but with the prism you still get a somewhat lower perceived output.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Sep 28, 2010)

don.gwapo said:


> Nope. I always skip that mode on my preon 1 and mini cr2 and jump at high right away even it ruin my night vision at night. :naughty:. Just love that brightnes coz they are running on 10440 & rcr2. :devil:.


 
I can't do that. Just too bright for late night walk.


----------



## Good day (Sep 28, 2010)

Of course 4/7 flashlight is wonderful,but i don't think i can use 0.2 lumen,it is too dark to use for me.The lowest lumen i can accept is 1 lumen


----------



## don.gwapo (Sep 28, 2010)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> I can't do that. Just too bright for late night walk.


 
It's just me. I'm still on the stage of 'brighter is better'. :naughty:.


----------



## kaichu dento (Sep 29, 2010)

EZO said:


> ...I think not having a hot spot could be useful at that output depending on how one is using their light...


I agree 100% and this is why my MillerMods Arc-AA is one of my absolute late night favorites. No hotspot and nice wide, soft beam that is identical in brightness anywhere within its beam coverage.

At super low level it's nothing short of intoxicating, to see the natural moon-like glow it puts out.


----------



## joema (Sep 29, 2010)

EZO said:


> ....If the Quark can do .2 lumens, the RA .3 lumen (or as low as .1, I believe) but the SF T1A goes down to 1.0 lumen, how can the T1A go "a bunch lower" than the Quark, etc? Does it go lower than the claimed spec?...



My Ra Clicky outputs 0.07 lumens on the lowest level. Assuming that's correct and using it as a reference with a lux meter, my Surefire T1A is a fraction of that -- the lux meter says 1/80th of 0.07 lumens, which would be 0.000875 lumens. With fully dark adapted eyes you can *still* navigate a small room using that, which shows how non-linear human brightness perception is.

My Photon REX's lowest level is about 1/9th the output of my Ra Clicky's lowest level, which would be about 0.0075 lumens.

My Quark 123 Mini's lowest level is about 17x brighter than the Ra Clicky's lowest level, which would be 1.21 lumens.


----------



## Connor (Sep 29, 2010)

@joema
You cannot convert lux readings to lumens like that. In fact you cannot convert lux to lumens at all - they are two completely different units measuring different qualities of light.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Sep 29, 2010)

joema said:


> My Ra Clicky outputs 0.07 lumens on the lowest level. Assuming that's correct and using it as a reference with a lux meter, my Surefire T1A is a fraction of that -- the lux meter says 1/80th of 0.07 lumens, which would be 0.000875 lumens. With fully dark adapted eyes you can *still* navigate a small room using that, which shows how non-linear human brightness perception is.
> 
> My Photon REX's lowest level is about 1/9th the output of my Ra Clicky's lowest level, which would be about 0.0075 lumens.
> 
> My Quark 123 Mini's lowest level is about 17x brighter than the Ra Clicky's lowest level, which would be 1.21 lumens.



Are you using ceiling bounce and logging the lux numbers, or a type of lightbox using a light meter. I use bounce with a lux meter comparing to some off my other lights to get approximations of lumens.

Bill


----------



## hopkins (Sep 29, 2010)

Some people can tell it is easier to negotiate terrain when Jupiter is in the
clear night sky due to its added light to only star light -no moon.

So 0.2 lumen can really be enough, but not all you might want.


----------



## joema (Sep 29, 2010)

Connor said:


> @joema
> You cannot convert lux readings to lumens like that. In fact you cannot convert lux to lumens at all - they are two completely different units measuring different qualities of light.


I used a lux meter to measure the known lumen output of a Ra Clicky at 0.07 lumens, and used that lux value as a "standard candle" when measuring other lights. That should have been clear from my previous post.

If the Ra Clicky at 0.07 lumens produces x lux, and another light produces 17x lux under the same measurement conditions, it's roughly 17 * 0.07 lumens, or 1.19 lumens.

The measurement was taken point blank with the light against the lux meter sensor. This reduces any impact of reflector, optic, or beam angle.

No, it's not a NEMA calibrated method, but for our informal purposes here it gives the approximate magnitude of difference.

It's not that different from the "milk carton" lightbox method used by Doug Pribis for many years on flighlightreviews.com. He used a lux meter to measure relative output differences and extrapolated that to an approximate lumen value: http://flashlightreviews.com/features/output_vs_throw.htm#lumens

Of *course* lux and lumen are two different entities. But -- given a *known* lumen output, you can easily extrapolate the *approximate* lumen output of a different light from it's lightbox lux number. Capturing most of the output by pointing the bezel against the light sensor (if covered with a translucent, diffusing filter) is like a mini-lightbox.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Oct 1, 2010)

If it is possible and not too much to ask, can someone post a picture of <.02 lumen in actual use in a dark room? I remember reading that someone actually ceiling bouce with such low lumen or navigate a room in total darkness. I don't have such a low low lumen. I am curious.


----------



## Burgess (Oct 1, 2010)

Keep in mind, your EYES are not like a Camera.


A photo would hardly show a fair representation.


:candle:
_


----------



## chanjyj (Oct 1, 2010)

Burgess said:


> Keep in mind, your EYES are not like a Camera.
> 
> 
> A photo would hardly show a fair representation.
> ...



If you use a slow shutter (drag shutter, burst the light) it would show a close approximation.


----------



## curtis22 (Oct 1, 2010)

Is there a difference between "really use" and "use"?

I use .2 lumens a lot.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Oct 1, 2010)

> Is there a difference between "really use" and "use"?


 
Some can just turn it on and use it for fun. But not necessary use it for real world application.


----------



## EZO (Oct 1, 2010)

curtis22 said:


> Is there a difference between "really use" and "use"?



I think if you read the original post for this thread you'll understand how dealgrabber2002 meant that question. This thread made me more aware of how we all have different subjective experiences with low light sensitivity.


----------



## AILL (Oct 1, 2010)

I use the lowest mode of my Novatacs (8 different) every night. One is always sitting on my nightstand and illuminating the roof. Depends which tint I like in the night.
I live in a private street without illumination and my house is close to the forest. Can be VERY DARK here, believe me, you will not see your own hands in the dark if there is no moon shining.

Andreas


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Mar 14, 2011)

I decided to bring this thread back to life since I've just read a post someone is looking for a light that is lower than .1 lumen. Some like me will ask "you for real?.. what do you do with that less light?" There are some interesting opinions in this thread.

Guys, it's no joke when someone asked that. They really have use for it.


----------



## AnotherADDiction (Mar 14, 2011)

I am amazed at how I graduated 'down' in light. I went from a D10 to a clicky. I thought that was good until I received my Arnor head from Milky - that low is fantastic. It is amazing how useful it is when the MCE die is just almost glowing. The Quark RGB on moonlight with the red LED is pretty good too.


----------



## flatline (Mar 14, 2011)

So, when choosing the right amount of light for a job, here are my criteria:

1. the level of light must be sufficient to meet my illumination needs.
2. the level of light must not be enough brighter than the ambient that my eyes need to adjust to it before I can function.
3. the level of light must not be enough brighter than the ambient that my eyes need to adjust to the ambient when I'm done using the light.

With these rules in mind, I hope it's obvious why I treasure the 0.07L output of my HDS Clicky so much. Even the Quark moon mode is too high when I get up in the middle of the night to check on the little man.

--flatline


----------



## maro69camaro (Mar 14, 2011)

my edc right now ex10 will light my whole room tail standing on low. I really wish it had a lower setting.


----------



## PCC (Mar 14, 2011)

I bought a Quark 123 Tactical specifically for the moonlight mode that it offers. As a matter of fact, the second setting is set to Low and I never use it. I have a dead CR123a in it that is so drained out that it won't stay lit on Low for more than a few seconds. I bought this light because I needed a light to use in the early mornings when I'm getting ready for work and the 2 lumen low is bright enough to wake my daughter. The 0.8 lumens from the moonlight mode is still brighter than my night-adjusted vision can handle, so, I'm now looking for something with an even lower low.


----------



## fisk-king (Mar 14, 2011)

PCC said:


> I bought a Quark 123 Tactical specifically for the moonlight mode that it offers. As a matter of fact, the second setting is set to Low and I never use it. I have a dead CR123a in it that is so drained out that it won't stay lit on Low for more than a few seconds. I bought this light because I needed a light to use in the early mornings when I'm getting ready for work and the 2 lumen low is bright enough to wake my daughter. The 0.8 lumens from the moonlight mode is still brighter than my night-adjusted vision can handle, so, I'm now looking for something with an even lower low.


 

IMO, if you are looking for a CR123 light with a very low setting the Surefire T1A (Titan) would be the first to start looking into. Keep in mind they are pretty pricey which is another discussion. 

Personally, I only see use for that type of low setting which is late in the morning to navigate around the house or if I was stuck in the jungle/bush and don't want to give my position away to *Charlie*.


----------



## L.E.Diode (Mar 14, 2011)

use my new sunwayman m10r around the house all the time it has a very low low 4 lumen i think would not want any less


----------



## scout24 (Mar 14, 2011)

My Titans and Titan T1A's have the most usable low level around, IMHO. The other option is the new variable Jetbeam, goes much lower than my Sunwayman V10A, just as low as my Titans. I switch back and forth between them for getting ready for work and "midnight runs" in the house, everything else is too bright for me. A very low cost option is the Photon Freedom Micro coin cell light, only goes to 10lm. or so, but has the same sweet low. Much easier to mouth hold than Titans or Jetbeams. Be sure to get the covert nose, or the sidespill from the emitter will degrade your night vision even at these low levels...


----------



## oldskoolsmith (Mar 14, 2011)

I find the 0.2 lumens useless on my quark aa2, but I live in the city.

I'll have to try it in the woods this summer.


----------



## TexLight (Mar 14, 2011)

the 0.33 lumens on my HDS clicky is great for using in the middle of the night without disturbing others...


----------



## f22shift (Mar 14, 2011)

PCC said:


> I bought a Quark 123 Tactical specifically for the moonlight mode that it offers. As a matter of fact, the second setting is set to Low and I never use it. I have a dead CR123a in it that is so drained out that it won't stay lit on Low for more than a few seconds. I bought this light because I needed a light to use in the early mornings when I'm getting ready for work and the 2 lumen low is bright enough to wake my daughter. The 0.8 lumens from the moonlight mode is still brighter than my night-adjusted vision can handle, so, I'm now looking for something with an even lower low.


 
or you can diffuse the moonlight mode. scotch tape or something similar.


----------



## rlichter (Mar 15, 2011)

Quote and post deleted. Old history since resolved.


----------



## kaichu dento (Mar 15, 2011)

The original question seemed outlandish to some at the time and many of us had our work cut out for us convincing others that the absolute lowest settings of Henry's lights (.07 and .08) were far too bright. Now as more and more of us become accustomed to getting the exact amount of light we need it's become a much more super-low-level friendly atmosphere. 

Come over to the dark side. Once you understand it, you'll like it.


----------



## macnoodle (Mar 15, 2011)

The 0.2 lumens on my ZL SC51W can even be a little too bright in the middle of the night. So yes, I definitely use this setting, and quite often!


----------



## DM51 (Mar 15, 2011)

rlichter said:


> As I understand the rules of the game, and not only the rules governing CPF, we have a right to expect courtesy. Whoever used denigrating language owes you an apology.


That is correct; and we expect a high standard here. One may dispute a post, but not attack the poster, and there must be no abuse, rudeness, provocation, bad language, denigration or belittling expressions used. 

Incidentally, the exchange you refer to happened quite a long time ago, so it is past history now.


----------



## woodentsick (Mar 15, 2011)

I use the 0.18 lumen setting on my Zebralight SC51w and 0.2 lumen setting on my Quark AA-2 almost exclusively when navigating around home at night. I haven't found any other uses for it though... But it is definitely bright enough at night. Sometimes I even want a slightly lower setting 

woodentsick


----------



## run4jc (Mar 15, 2011)

scout24 said:


> My Titans and Titan T1A's have the most usable low level around, IMHO. The other option is the new variable Jetbeam, goes much lower than my Sunwayman V10A, just as low as my Titans.


 I agree - my Titans went away some time ago, but the Jetbeam TC-R2 and RRT-0 give a great low low - the V10R is great, too, but not as low. Like scout, I use mine early in the AM moving around to avoid waking the Mrs., and for the inevitable midnight runs - at least inevitable since I turned north of 50!



macnoodle said:


> The 0.2 lumens on my ZL SC51W can even be a little too bright in the middle of the night. So yes, I definitely use this setting, and quite often!


 My ZL SC51W is one of my absolute favorite lights - I actually keep it in my pocket through the night (SC30W on the way - may switch to it). Regardless, it seems almost 'blinding' on the lowest low compared to the JB, but I still love it because of the ease of the interface...press/hold and you are on low.

This is a great thread IMHO, because it reveals that, in spite of all of our collective love for a flame throwing light, a really low low is very useful. :thumbsup:


----------



## shane45_1911 (Mar 15, 2011)

I think I would have bought my HDS clickies, even if the ONLY level they offered was .07 /.08.

I use the lowest level more than I use any other of my custom presets.


----------



## PCC (Mar 15, 2011)

f22shift said:


> or you can diffuse the moonlight mode. scotch tape or something similar.


Sorry, forgot to mention that I had already put a layer of diffusion film on the lens of this light, which softened the hotspot up. I'm probably going to get an Ra Clicky to experience the ultra low low of that light then go from there.

In the mean time, I've installed a QTC into the switch of my Streamlight BatonLite that I've modified (McR10 reflector, SSC P4 U-bin, Sandwich Shop Mad Max Lite) and I'm able to crank down the lumens to the point where it's worthlessly dim so I have an interim solution. The only real problem with this setup is that it's finicky and the brightness will go up and down depending on whether or not I handle the tail cap switch or not and the QTC itself flows more current after a few seconds even if the tail cap is undisturbed. Still, this light makes the Q123T in moonlight mode look bright in comparison.


----------



## nightcacher (Mar 15, 2011)

I use the quark aa2 .2 moonlight every night as a night light and is about just right. The prism and diffuser spreads the light too much. My ArmyTek Predator has a .1 firefly mode and that is too low. Would be great for covert operations where detection is not a option.


----------



## RobertM (Mar 15, 2011)

For those who may be skeptical of how much lower the T1A goes compared to an HDS EDC, here is a comparison:

(Left) T1A lowest setting | (Right) HDS EDC High CRI lowest setting (0.07 lumens)






(Left) HDS EDC High CRI lowest setting (0.07 lumens) | (Right) T1A lowest setting





It's pretty a significant difference 


Edit: I originally missed scout24's excellent comparison pic or a whole bunch of low output lights earlier in this thread as well.


----------



## MK9 (Mar 15, 2011)

I, to, have gone to the dark side. My main house light for going to onto the kids rooms (kids, HA!! 19 and 17) is my ZL 501 on low. This saves me from a verbal thrashing at the hands of said children if they awake by my intrusion. I used it just yesteday morning (James Taylor). I used it to swipe my daughter's laptop from her room so mom could surf while I watched Tora Tora Tora.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Mar 15, 2011)

kaichu dento said:


> Come over to the dark side. Once you understand it, you'll like it.


 
I am hoping I would someday. I live in a city with lights everywhere. Not really have a chance to really appreciate the low low. Like another member said... hopefully this summer while camping I will get a chance to appreciate the low low.


----------



## brucejiang (Mar 15, 2011)

I's prefer 1-3lm at low mode


----------



## ToNIX (Mar 15, 2011)

My moonlight mode on my Quark AA is extremely useful, especially when I'm going camping. The low mode is way too bright when your eyes are adjusted to dark.


----------



## Kestrel (Mar 15, 2011)

RobertM said:


> For those who may be skeptical of how much lower the T1A goes compared to an HDS EDC, here is a comparison:
> 
> (Left) T1A lowest setting | (Right) HDS EDC High CRI lowest setting (0.07 lumens)
> [...]


I do like low-low's, with most of my lights not going low enough, but honestly I'd rather have those 0.07 nicely-tinted lumens in my T1A instead of the severely-tinted blue low-low-low that it has. :shrug:


----------



## DM51 (Mar 15, 2011)

Kestrel said:


> I'd rather have 0.07 nicely-tinted lumens in my T1A instead of the severely-tinted blue low-low-low that it has.


Get DaFAB to mod it for you and put in a new emitter. MyT1A has a beautiful warm tint - he did a great job.


----------



## Kestrel (Mar 15, 2011)

DM51 said:


> Get DaFAB to mod it for you and put in a new emitter. MyT1A has a beautiful warm tint - he did a great job.


I know, it's not all that expensive of a mod IMO (I rec'd a quote from him re: doing this), if I used my T1A more I'd get that done.


----------



## scout24 (Mar 15, 2011)

Kestrel- Get it done, and you will use the T1A more...  Both of my Ti Titans were modded before my purchasing them with high-cri Seoul P4's, and are my most-used lights if you go by runtime per day, not carry time. I used to own a DaFab modded T1A, and can attest to the quality and usefulness of the mod.


----------



## f22shift (Mar 15, 2011)

i remember seeing those tritum map reader things. i wonder how much lumens it has.

also i wonder if a red diffusor would be easier on the eyes regardless of the lumen amount.


----------



## Kestrel (Mar 15, 2011)

f22shift said:


> i remember seeing those tritum map reader things. i wonder how much lumens it has.


I asked someone who had both the T1A and a trit 'light' (one of those 'Lucce del Notte' - please forgive the bad spelling) and he reported that the trit 'output' was about a third to a half of the T1A at minimum output, IIRC.


----------



## kaichu dento (Mar 16, 2011)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> I am hoping I would someday. I live in a city with lights everywhere. Not really have a chance to really appreciate the low low. Like another member said... hopefully this summer while camping I will get a chance to appreciate the low low.


 I was in the city for a few months last year and used my medium levels a lot more than low, expect when inside the house at night. Definitely at their best in a dark house...


----------



## luceat lux vestra (Mar 16, 2011)

moonlight is my favorite mode of all the quark modes!!!!


----------



## AILL (Mar 16, 2011)

I live on the outskirts of our city, I have the wood close to my garden. And in the night there is only the moon. We donot have any street lights here. So it is really dark.
I suffer from clusterheadaches http://www.clusterheadaches.com (episodical, thanks to heaven) and I need a VERY low light in the night to find my Oxygen-bottle etc. Too much light immediately increases the pain to a dreadful level.

So I have a HDS or Novatac or Quark every night tailstanding on my nightstand shining on lowest level with a diffusor. Perfect. More light would be excruciating painful.

Andreas


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Mar 17, 2011)

Kestrel said:


> I asked someone who had both the T1A and a trit 'light' (one of those 'Lucce del Notte' - please forgive the bad spelling) and he reported that the trit 'output' was about a third to a half of the T1A at minimum output, IIRC.


 
The tritum map reader is that low? I remember seeing it on youtube and it's pretty bright.


----------



## flatline (Mar 19, 2011)

Little man got cold during the night and demanded I change his short-sleeved PJs with some long-sleeved PJs. I grabbed the Quark AA to look in the drawer and the 0.2 Lumen Moon-mode was absolutely blinding when I turned it on.

It makes me think that the people who can't understand wanting a sub-lumen level must not ever use their lights in the middle of the night. Or maybe they sleep with shades on 

--flatline


----------



## macnoodle (Mar 19, 2011)

It's only a unit of measurement, not a commandment (Thou shalt not use sub-lumen power outputs on your flashlight! ). If 0.2 lumens sounds too low, you can always call it 2 decilumens, 20 centilumens or 200 millilumens. Whatever makes you happy.


----------



## wrencher (Mar 19, 2011)

I have both my clickys set to .07. I use one every night. Recently at a hotel stay I used one as night 
light in candle mode. Family liked it just fine.


----------



## Launch Mini (Mar 19, 2011)

I may have posted before, but my "go to" light for middle of the night use is the Warm White SPY007, level one is set very low.
We don't have any streetlights affecting the interior of our house, so even on low, it is surprising how well you can see. AND it doesn't bother the dogs, nor are your eyes rudely awaken with the harshness from my cool white lights. 
Much easier to return to sleep afterwards.


----------



## afdk (Mar 19, 2011)

No, don't need it!! I know some people on this web site feel it's a must, but my fenix LD01s at (2 lumen) output is all the lowest light I would ever need! My Surefire E2Dl has the 5 (lumen) mode and that's also very satisfactory to me. If you need to check on a child/baby in your house, just point the light toward the celling or just away from them. Trust me 2-5 lumen output on any light is just fine. Other people on this site will disagree.


----------



## Fluffy Ops (Mar 19, 2011)

Definitely.

When in complete darkness (wilderness at night, room with blinds down, etc.) your eyes will ahve adapted itself into night-vision mode. By this time, turning on a 0.2 lumens beam is more than enough. If you use this setting as an area-light (e.g. candle), it is enough to distinguish objects around you. If you hold it and shine it directly at targets, you will effectively identify them, texture and all.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Mar 19, 2011)

flatline said:


> I grabbed the Quark AA to look in the drawer and the 0.2 Lumen Moon-mode was absolutely blinding when I turned it on.
> 
> --flatline



You sure it's not the pre-flash?


----------



## flatline (Mar 19, 2011)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> You sure it's not the pre-flash?



Quite certain. The pre-flash on my Quark AA is only detectable if I'm actually looking for it.

--flatline


----------



## Beacon of Light (Mar 19, 2011)

At night in complete darkness my Jetbeam RRT-0 with it's .003 lumen, yes you read that correct, .003 lumens, is bright enough for navigation. Any light worth it's salt should have low lows like this! Hopefully someday a AAA light like this will be available that won't be uber expensive.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Mar 19, 2011)

I think I may have posted this earlier in this thread but all my Novatacs are programmed with the three lowest modes and the HIGH is < 5 lumen IIRC it is 3.4 lumens. I regularly use my Jetbeam RRT-0 hanging over my laptop computer at night and somewhere between .003 lumen and .03 lumen is where it stays.


----------



## woodentsick (Mar 20, 2011)

I don't know what I'd do without the 0.18 lumen setting on my Zebralight SC51w, it's so useful! But many times I find it is too bright when navigating my house at night, so I'm hoping to purchase a HDS High CRI light in the near future which will have a 0.07 lumen setting!

Woodentsick


----------



## kaichu dento (Mar 20, 2011)

Beacon of Light said:


> At night in complete darkness my Jetbeam RRT-0 with it's .003 lumen, yes you read that correct, .003 lumens, is bright enough for navigation. Any light worth it's salt should have low lows like this! Hopefully someday a AAA light like this will be available that won't be uber expensive.


Hey Beacon, do you have any idea what level it takes to approximate the visual brightness of the moon? I don't think it would be very high at all and can only assume that those incapable of seeing the value in the very low output levels must also be incapable of walking by the light of the moon.


----------



## bansuri (Mar 20, 2011)

My current CR123 EDC is an HDS Basic 60 with an XP-G 5C. The lowest setting was OK but the PWM was killing me. I hadn't messed with the 250 click method on this light previously as I figured the low setting was the lowest already. Did the 250 click crack and discovered that it wasn't the lowest setting AND the lowest setting appears to have a higher PWM rate. 750+ clicks later I've got all the levels levels to my liking.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Mar 20, 2011)

kaichu dento said:


> Hey Beacon, do you have any idea what level it takes to approximate the visual brightness of the moon? I don't think it would be very high at all and can only assume that those incapable of seeing the value in the very low output levels must also be incapable of walking by the light of the moon.


 
Only problem with that scenario is the light from the moon is like someone shining a Quark AA from above us (albeit > 200,000 miles away) so the flood effect is more apparent from the actual moon glow than from a flashlight of any kind. I was just outside wandering around with the "super moon" tonight and any of my low low lights were kind of useless unless I went to the next level. On my Zebralight H50B I had to go to medium to get enough light to focus on newly planted grass plugs I was watering this evening. Normally low or moon mode would be enough.

As far as lumens I would estimate anything below 1 lumen but like I said above, it's a different kind of light from so huigh above to the light we see from our lights.


----------



## kaichu dento (Mar 20, 2011)

Beacon of Light said:


> Only problem with that scenario is the light from the moon is like someone shining a Quark AA from above us (albeit > 200,000 miles away) so the flood effect is more apparent from the actual moon glow than from a flashlight of any kind. I was just outside wandering around with the "super moon" tonight and any of my low low lights were kind of useless unless I went to the next level. On my Zebralight H50B I had to go to medium to get enough light to focus on newly planted grass plugs I was watering this evening. Normally low or moon mode would be enough.
> 
> As far as lumens I would estimate anything below 1 lumen but like I said above, it's a different kind of light from so huigh above to the light we see from our lights.


I know it's very difficult to do a comparison with such a broad light source and a flashlight, but what I usually do when comparing tint and output with the moon is to shine my light at the border of a shadow and adjust up and down until it looks as though I have an approximation of the same output level. I guess someone with the right light meter could probably take a reading and at least give a ballpark figure. Maybe I'll get a meter someday and try it myself.


----------



## afdk (Mar 20, 2011)

I don't own any lights that can produce (.2 lumen). My E2DL has a lower 5 lumen mode and when used with the F04 diffuser pointing at the ceiling, it's dim enough for me.


----------



## Flucero28 (Mar 21, 2011)

The 0.2 lumen low mode on my zebralight sc51 is perfect for middle of the night baby checks and bathroom walks! I love having a mode that low, and as others have mentioned in total darkness its still pretty bright.


----------



## onetrickpony (Mar 21, 2011)

I love a nice low low low for when it's the middle of the night and the family is asleep. Especially if the kids have migrated to our bed for the night. The lower the better, I basically want something that doesn't affect my night vision at all, and has no chance of waking the little ones.


----------



## LEDrock (Mar 21, 2011)

onetrickpony said:


> I love a nice low low low for when it's the middle of the night and the family is asleep. Especially if the kids have migrated to our bed for the night. The lower the better, I basically want something that doesn't affect my night vision at all, and has no chance of waking the little ones.


 
I don't have any high priced lights, but I actually have very cheap lights for purposes like this, with the old 5mm leds. Use low batteries that can't be used elsewhere in one of these lights, and not only do you have a dim light for low-lighting purposes, but you also get to make the most of your batteries!


----------



## srfreddy (Mar 21, 2011)

I pulled an old mini-maglite out of the drawer, stuck a christmas light wide angle 5mm led in there, stuck a wide opening mini maglite rebel head on it, and voila! One super low flashlight until my Zebralight gets here... the beam is ugly as #@^%#^$ though, and the CRI is estimated at 50.


----------



## scout24 (Mar 21, 2011)

I won't retire my Titans, but a Photon Freedom Micro w/ white LED and the covert nose running a 2032 battery in place of the two 2016's is just as low, and very inexpensive as well. Keep one on my keychain with a mini Bic and a small SAK. I'll try to round up all my lowest output lights for a group beamshot tomorrow night.


----------



## srfreddy (Mar 21, 2011)

scout24 said:


> I won't retire my Titans, but a Photon Freedom Micro w/ white LED and the covert nose running a 2032 battery in place of the two 2016's is just as low, and very inexpensive as well. Keep one on my keychain with a mini Bic and a small SAK. I'll try to round up all my lowest output lights for a group beamshot tomorrow night.


 
Who won the runtime test?


----------



## orient (Mar 22, 2011)

never choose it, what is it stand for? a tiny beamshot with it but it make no sense to use it.


----------



## kaichu dento (Mar 22, 2011)

I can't remember the exact output levels of my LF2XT and MiNi AA warm, but my high CRI Clicky is .07 lumens and I drove my SUS-V track vehicle down the mountain tonight with all lights off, navigating by using the lowest settings on all three of these EDC lights. Wanted to try the Draco too, but didn't feel like messing around taking it off my neck while driving!

If I can drive on a steep, winding mountain trail by the lowest settings on these lights I think they have proven themselves quite well!


----------



## Outdoorsman5 (Mar 22, 2011)

I have used the .18 lumens on my Zebralight SC60 a decent amount. Mostly in our tent when camping. I'm in the habit of waking up early (4:30) most mornings. When moving around inside the tent with my wife & 3 kids sleeping the lowest mode is great & no one gets woken up....at least not from the light. I have also used that setting in movie theaters picking up something one of my kids might have dropped. I don't use that setting for much else though.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Mar 23, 2011)

kaichu dento said:


> I can't remember the exact output levels of my LF2XT and MiNi AA warm, but my high CRI Clicky is .07 lumens and I drove my SUS-V track vehicle down the mountain tonight with all lights off, navigating by using the lowest settings on all three of these EDC lights. Wanted to try the Draco too, but didn't feel like messing around taking it off my neck while driving!
> 
> If I can drive on a steep, winding mountain trail by the lowest settings on these lights I think they have proven themselves quite well!


 
Wow.


----------



## jax (Mar 26, 2011)

i am using 0.2 lumen right now! quark aa..
but before i got the quark i wondered how can 0.2 lumens be used to see anything? 
but it turns out 0.2 lumens in complete blackness is pretty bright


----------



## wanglong (Mar 26, 2011)

I don't really use 0.2 lumen , because I havn't a flashlight with so lower lumen .


----------



## phonoe (Mar 26, 2011)

I haven't got one yet but I would like to. I am looking for the Thrunite Neutron 1A.


----------



## Djonah Inc. (Apr 14, 2011)

Since I really like Fenix, I tought that it would be a good idea to ask Fenix about plans for a moonlight enabled Fenix.
I've got an answer from Joyce from Fenix 

my proposal for a light with
<0.2 lm
4-ish lm

med
high
turbo
size: AA or smaller
optimal runtime (as other fenix lights)

The idea will be sent to the R&D section and hopefully, we will see a new competitor in the moonlight section!

cheers



> Hello
> 
> Here is Fenix manufacturer in China.
> Thank you very much for using Fenix lights.
> ...


----------



## edpmis02 (Apr 14, 2011)

I use mine as a night light by shining it into a small table lamp's shade. Gives it a nice "Glow". Can ramp up if needed for other things. (Quark AA-2 running on LSD).


----------



## squaat (Apr 14, 2011)

0.2 lumens is very useful. I use it most for checking in on the kids, or navigating around the house when everyone is asleep. Actually on my quark and my wifes h51 its the most used level


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Apr 14, 2011)

I use the very low brightness mode for night reading in bed before going to sleep. Currently I'm using a budget EDI-T T11 since it has a nice wide flood and with its ramping brightness I can set it to a very dim level.

I've also used an LF2XT with XPG-R5 emitter upgrade. Nice flood beam makes it a good short range reading light on low. 

My dimmest light is my other LF2XT without the emitter upgrade. But it's so dim that on lowest power setting it doesn't provide enough light to light up a paperback book a foot away. And with its more focused spot isn't so good as a short range reading light.


----------



## Starchaser (Apr 15, 2011)

I use the low low L2 .18 lumens (16 days) on my ZebraLight H51w all the time... it's one of my favorite features of this light.

I just used it the other night in a dark movie theater to find my seat very inconspicuously, without disturbing anyone else watching the movie. I also use it late at night when walking around the house in the dark.

It is plenty bright when it's dark without much ambient light, and you get great runtime too.


----------



## shane45_1911 (Apr 15, 2011)

I probably would have bought my HDS 140 even if the ONLY level it offered was 0.07 lm. It is by far the most used level on this light.


----------



## flatline (Apr 15, 2011)

shane45_1911 said:


> I probably would have bought my HDS 140 even if the ONLY level it offered was 0.07 lm. It is by far the most used level on this light.


 
Wow, I'm all for buying lights for specific purposes, but for as much as I love my high CRI Clicky and the 0.07L output level, I would not have considered buying the light if that was the only output level. My most used output level is about 3L, but I would never consider an EDC that doesn't do at least 30L.

--flatline


----------



## chaoss (Apr 15, 2011)

I use the ultra low on my Nitecore EX11.2 alot.
It's the lowest level light that i own and gets NAV duty exclusively.


----------



## MWClint (Apr 15, 2011)

if you have no nitelights, the low lows are useful for navigating around the house without disturbing anyone.


----------



## purelite (Apr 15, 2011)

No I dont. why in the name of god would you need .2 lumens? 

If you need light you need light.

But I do understand there are low lumen junkies out there and there is something t be said for a low lumens that goes for 50 or 75 hours


----------



## stoli67 (Apr 15, 2011)

I use the lowest setting on an RA clicky or a 4sevens when I go into the babies room and go searching for his dummy/pacifier ... Perfect for that... Actually I could use 0.1!


----------



## Starchaser (Apr 15, 2011)

purelite said:


> No I dont. why in the name of god would you need .2 lumens?



For all the reasons mentioned in this thread so far. 



purelite said:


> But I do understand there are low lumen junkies out there and there is something t be said for a low lumens that goes for 50 or 75 hours



How about 384 hours at .18 lumens for the H51w, or 422 hours at .4 lumens for the Quark AA. 

I'm not a low lumen junky, but it's definitely nice to have the flexiblitly of low lumens when needed, or for when the situation calls for it.


----------



## kaichu dento (Apr 16, 2011)

purelite said:


> No I dont. why in the name of god would you need .2 lumens?
> 
> If you need light you need light.


 If you can see by the light of the moon then you are capable of seeing at even lower levels than .2lumens. Have you never used a Novatac/HDS/Ra light on it's lowest level? They go down to .07 or .08 depending on model and there are many of us in agreeance that it would be nice to have a lower level capability yet.

Needing light is like needing speed in a car - they're much more useful if you have high capabilities, coupled with the ability to rein them in and use only what you need at the moment. Full throttle in a parking lot anyone?


----------



## Nicrod (Apr 16, 2011)

Marduke said:


> If you actually were in the dark and let your eyes adjust, .2 lumens is more than enough.
> 
> Close yourself in a totally dark room with no light for 20 minutes. Then turn on your d10 and see how overly bright it can be, to the point of hurting.


 

+1 I love .2 lumens. I can't live without it. I use it to clean m cats eyes and ears without blinding them amongst 
Dozens of other tasks, of which already covered in this thread.


----------



## Blueskies123 (Apr 16, 2011)

How about 384 hours at .18 lumens for the H51w, or 422 hours at .4 lumens for the Quark AA. 
______________________________________________
I have both the AA Quark and SC51 Zebralight. The Quark says is runs on .4 lumens while the Zebralight says .18 Lumens. Placed side by side the Zebralight in much brighter. You can look right at led on Quark when it on but the not with Zebralight. Are these advertized rating correct?


----------



## Starchaser (Apr 16, 2011)

Blueskies123 said:


> I have both the AA Quark and SC51 Zebralight. The Quark says is runs on .4 lumens while the Zebralight says .18 Lumens. Placed side by side the Zebralight in much brighter. You can look right at led on Quark when it on but the not with Zebralight. Are these advertized rating correct?



Thats interesting, however when my ZebraLight H51w is on L2 .18 lumens I can look directly into the light without it hurting my eyes at all.


----------



## jorn (Apr 16, 2011)

Starchaser said:


> Thats interesting, however when my ZebraLight H51w is on L2 .18 lumens I can look directly into the light without it hurting my eyes at all.


 It's the lux that hurt your eyes, not the lumens. My old none reflector zebralight (h30 i think) with someting like 2 lumen low, looks dimmer than my warm quark turbo in moonlight mode.


----------



## Blueskies123 (Apr 16, 2011)

jorn said:


> It's the lux that hurt your eyes, not the lumens. My old none reflector zebralight (h30 i think) with someting like 2 lumen low, looks dimmer than my warm quark turbo in moonlight mode.


 

So the Zerbralight SC51 in moodlight mode has half the lumens of the Quark moonlight but the Zebra light has much more Lux? Using the both side by side the SC51 looks more floody and brighter. To the casual eye the Zebralight looks like it has more flux and Lumens. I am not sure that can be based on Lumens ratings for both moon modes.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Apr 16, 2011)

I definitely would have bought a Novatac light if the only mode was .07 lumens as that is what I use 99% of the time. 



flatline said:


> Wow, I'm all for buying lights for specific purposes, but for as much as I love my high CRI Clicky and the 0.07L output level, I would not have considered buying the light if that was the only output level. My most used output level is about 3L, but I would never consider an EDC that doesn't do at least 30L.
> 
> --flatline


----------



## srfreddy (Apr 16, 2011)

Beacon of Light said:


> I definitely would have bought a Novatac light if the only mode was .07 lumens as that is what I use 99% of the time.


 
I would never, thats what an infinity mag (Minimag, 5mm led, 2 alkies) is for.......the point is having the low, with a useful high when you need it.


----------



## pacu123 (Apr 17, 2011)

I use the moonlight mode on my Quark 2aa R5 everyday. I think for the most part if I am indoors I never go beyond medium and most of the time I am on low or moonlight. 

My woman just bought a Thrunite Neutron 2aa with xml-t6. It hasn't come in the mail yet but I'm interested to see how it compares. It will be her first light with a moon mode. Her current light is an L2D Q5.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Apr 18, 2011)

Fireclaw18 said:


> My dimmest light is my other LF2XT without the emitter upgrade. But it's so dim that on lowest power setting it doesn't provide enough light to light up a paperback book a foot away. And with its more focused spot isn't so good as a short range reading light.



You might be the first to complaint about too low. What is the lumen on the lowest mode on the LF2XT?


----------



## kaichu dento (Apr 19, 2011)

I'd like to get a hold of an LF2XT that had such a low level. Much as I love mine, I always wish it could go both lower and higher.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Apr 19, 2011)

srfreddy said:


> I would never, thats what an infinity mag (Minimag, 5mm led, 2 alkies) is for.......the point is having the low, with a useful high when you need it.


 
That's the difference between you and I then as I always strive for battery runtime.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Apr 22, 2011)

Hey FireClaw18,

I bet there are quite a few that loves to get their hands on your LF2XT.


----------



## srfreddy (Apr 22, 2011)

Beacon of Light said:


> That's the difference between you and I then as I always strive for battery runtime.


 
Well... seeing as an infinity mag has almost that (infinity runtime, probably a few months though) I don't see where the runtime would be lacking.


----------



## Testor (Apr 23, 2011)

I use the JetBeam TC-R2 in its lowest setting, said to be 0.003 Lumens. It's more than adequate in the dark late at night.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Apr 30, 2011)

Testor said:


> I use the JetBeam TC-R2 in its lowest setting, said to be *0.003 Lumens*. It's more than adequate in the dark late at night.


 
Besides the SPY007, Jetbeam TC-R2 has the lowest low?


----------



## Lighteous (Apr 30, 2011)

I use the lowest lumen setting on my Nitecore IFE1, Quark 123-2 and ThruNite Neutron 1C all the time.


----------



## scout24 (Apr 30, 2011)

Jetbeam TC-R2, variable RRT-0, Titan, Titan T1A are all right around the same, the Spy's are a whole different world. Milky does some super-low work as well.  My Luna Floodmaster goes lower than the four listed above, but for me it becomes a point of diminishing returns much below TC-R2, RRT-0, and the Titans. Any lower, and they become very near-task oriented lights, say a foot or so. Titans/ Jetbeams I can still navigate in the pitch dark in the middle oof the night without waking others or compromising night adapted vision, any brighter and both objectives go out the window for me.


----------



## luceat lux vestra (May 1, 2011)

scout24 said:


> Titans/ Jetbeams I can still navigate in the pitch dark in the middle oof the night without waking others or compromising night adapted vision, any brighter and both objectives go out the window for me.


 I agree. 
My quark aax2 is just about right on moonlight mode except for that pre-flash
does a titan or jetbeam pre-flash? Or is that just a quark quirk


----------



## scout24 (May 1, 2011)

No preflash on my Titans or Jetbeams, and my point was that for me, anything else (Quarks, HDS, Sunwayman) is too bright for middle-of-the-night use. Others swear by them, and that is one of the great thinga about all the choices we have. If one thing worked for everyone, this would be a boring place.  Preflash solved by cupping the light in your hand, or against your leg. Maybe it'll get sorted out if there is a Gen II version.


----------



## cratz2 (May 1, 2011)

Almost never. As far as I know, I've only ever owned two lights that can go that low. The ~16 level light which I rarely use any more and my HDS Basic 42 which I've carried pretty much every day since I got it in 2005, but it was modded with an SSC in 2007 so I'm guessing the .3L is now closer to 1 or 2L.

I guess the super duper minimum output would be great if you were stuck in a cave for ~15 days at a stretch, but I think 1 or 2 lumens is a lot more practical for most users.


----------



## kaichu dento (May 2, 2011)

scout24 said:


> No preflash on my Titans or Jetbeams, and my point was that for me, anything else (Quarks, HDS, Sunwayman) is too bright for middle-of-the-night use.


They're all great lights, but hard to believe though it may be, the Titan is one of the only lights that really, really goes low and like you, the Quarks, HDS and Sunwayman, love them though I do, don't go nearly as low as I wish they would either.
Another light that gets left out of the incredible low ratings is the Spy series, all of which are capable of going down to trit levels.

No pre-flash from my Titan or 007, but then I don't have any problem with any of my lights giving a pre-flash. Guess I got rid of all that did and can't remember their names...


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (May 7, 2011)

kaichu dento said:


> No pre-flash from my Titan or 007



Better not! That 007 is a ~$700 light!


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Aug 9, 2011)

I finally experienced what other are saying "once your eyes adapted to the dark, .2 lumen is good enough to read and do other things". I went camping last month and in pit black, I was able to read with very little amount of light. I can even read with a glow in the dark o-ring I placed in front of the light. WOW.

I didn't get a chance to use .2 lumen to walk to the bathroom because when I went, my gf went as well and she wants max brightness from the flashlight.


----------



## Spin (Aug 9, 2011)

Common sense tells me that individuals that constantly use 0.2 lumens to read, not disturb members of their household or on a camping trip will eventually have vision problems as they mature. Using the above amount of light to maneuver about appears to be unnatural for humans & only related to non-human night-time predator/prey situations.Though i can understand the use of miniscule amounts of light for military & emergency applications. I wonder how many of the "0.2 lumen" people use this amount of light for the economic and/or wow factor? Our previous generation did not have 0.2 lumens to take care of their family or traveling about the household at night & survived quite well. 'My' personal preference is to have various inexpensive three watt plug-in incandescent bulbs situated within my house where they provide appropriate illumination with minimum disturbance to my family.


----------



## Philonous (Aug 9, 2011)

Spin said:


> Common sense tells me that individuals that constantly use 0.2 lumens to read, not disturb members of their household or on a camping trip will eventually have vision problems as they mature. Using the above amount of light to maneuver about appears to be unnatural for humans & only related to non-human night-time predator/prey situations.Though i can understand the use of miniscule amounts of light for military & emergency applications. I wonder how many of the "0.2 lumen" people use this amount of light for the economic and/or wow factor? Our previous generation did not have 0.2 lumens to take care of their family or traveling about the household at night & survived quite well. 'My' personal preference is to have various inexpensive three watt plug-in incandescent bulbs situated within my house where they provide appropriate illumination with minimum disturbance to my family.




First of all, most experts agree that reading etc. in low light does not damage your eyes. It might cause eye-strain, but (as an avid reader) in my experience that usually happens when the room is bright but the _book_ is not adequately lit. More importantly, it only results in temporary discomfort.


What I can also say is that the 0.1 low on my SC600 is just fantastic for midnight necessities. Grab light, turn on, no "GAH, LIGHT!" moments, but enough light to make things out, get to the bathroom and stay on target. And when I turn it off and hit the pillow, I'm back to sleep almost instantly. It's definitely as useful as the turbo setting.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Aug 9, 2011)

Spin said:


> 'My' personal preference is to have various inexpensive three watt plug-in incandescent bulbs situated within my house where they provide appropriate illumination with minimum disturbance to my family.



Three watts? LOL Way too much light for me, an inveterate flashaholic who would prefer to walk around with 0.07 lumens at night, and never ever turn a light switch on. My most difficult task at night is to get the milk out of the frig without the frig light coming on. 

Bill


----------

