# IlluminaTi vs. Maratac AAA



## applevision (Nov 28, 2009)

*NOTE: I paid full retail price for both flashlights and the lights were NOT provided specifically for review.

*Dear CPF brethren,

I'm holding in my hands the new IlluminaTi with a fresh energizer lithium (thanks Matt!) in my hands!

I want to share some direct, head-to-head photos with the Maratac AAA--the light which is, in my opinion, the reigning champ of AAA. To the shots and then my thoughts will follow...

Photos taken with a Canon Rebel Eos (DSLR) on Manual with the settings locked.






_The "free gift light", the Maratac AAA and the Illumina Ti!





Maratac on Left and IlluminaTi on the Right head on





Reference shot of the wall and room





Maratac AAA on High





Illumina Ti on High





Maratac on Low (barely detectable by the camera)





IlluminaTi on Low





Maratac on High on the Left; IlluminaTi on High on the Right


_Impressions:
So, for those wondering, the IlluminaTi is indeed basically a titanium + XP-G version of the Maratac, right down to the shape and even the clip (not photographed here) which is IDENTICAL. In fact, the heads are even interchangeable!

The IlluminaTi is about 1 mm longer but it is negligible. This seems to happen right at the base which now has a real, built-in loop for the keychain attachment--I love it! It's more elegant and seems much more stable than the Maratac option (a clip on). The knurling pattern is different--it actually is very nice and smooth but gives just enough grip, so I'd say it's a win. Otherwise, man-oh-man is this the same light as the Maratac! And, *that is a good thing for us*, but if ITP (the actual makers of the lights that are then rebranded Maratac, as I understand it) is not in on this, they may be filing for some patient issues... 

So, the form is gorgeous: the titanium is beautiful, light and highly-polished. This is a beautiful light. The emitter is perfectly centered on mine which is lovely. The orange-peel reflector is identical to that of the Maratac, but interestingly, the glass on the IlluminaTi seems *significantly clearer* than that of the Maratac--it may be the AR coating, but it's just invisible! 

What about the function? Though the Ti-on-Ti is a little bit grindy, my unit is operable with one hand comfortably. It's not as smooth as the Al Maratac, but very reasonable. I also absolutely love the Low-Medium-High of the IlluminaTi vs. the M-L-H of the Maratac--it's really nice...

Now to the beams...

As you can see from the photos, the IlluminaTi is appreciably brighter and a bit whiter than the slightly yellowish Maratac. Of note, the low is also brighter which may be a turn off for some looking for the lower lows. Both lights are pretty floody so it's hard to appreciate much throw in either, but the better output of the IlluminaTi probably means it would throw a bit farther.

In sum, the Maratac has been my EDC AAA for a few months and is, in my opinion, a truly spectacular little light at a great price. Well, it set the stage and now a younger, brighter, and better-looking competitor has usurped the Maratac by a small but respectable margin. 

For me, the IlluminaTi represents the pinnacle of AAA lights at this moment: Tiny, Titanium, with the most efficient emitter out there, and for a pretty reasonable price. If you are looking for a AAA, this is clearly the light to get, though if money is tight, you will not go wrong with the Maratac AAA for less than 1/2 the price and about 90% of its goodness. 

I do not yet have my Preon but am very curious about how these two will face off... my sense is that the Preon is a bit longer but otherwise will match this light point-for-point. For my pocket, however, size is critical so I think it is unlikely that the Illumina Ti will be dethroned anytime soon. 

Thank you Battery Junction for making this great light available!


----------



## davidt1 (Nov 28, 2009)

Nice pictures! The new light seems brighter, yes? It looks nice.


----------



## applevision (Nov 28, 2009)

Indeed, the IlluminaTi is a brighter by a comfortable margin. Not blowing it out of the water, but it lights up a room with more authority; an incredible feat for a AAA light!


----------



## Phos4 (Nov 28, 2009)

i had been waitin for this

seems like the illuminati is the one i will be getting, shiiping too high on maratac.

thanx for the pics and words


----------



## sabre7 (Nov 29, 2009)

I read in another IlluminaTi thread that it will also be released in AL too- hope its not just a rumor. If priced comparably to the Maratac & iTP aluminums, it could be the new AAA champ.


----------



## Woods Walker (Nov 29, 2009)

IlluminaTi could be made by iTP/Olight but don't know. I want an Al one as can do without the Ti. Nice looking light in anycase. Cool photos, thanks.


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Nov 29, 2009)

Woods Walker said:


> IlluminaTi could be made by iTP/Olight but don't know. I want an Al one as can do without the Ti. Nice looking light in anycase. Cool photos, thanks.



+1. I want one in aluminum too. Titanium makes for a poor heatsink in that little light. They can call the aluminum version the Aluminati (they are free to use that name).


----------



## compasillo (Nov 29, 2009)

Phos4 said:


> i had been waitin for this
> 
> seems like the illuminati is the one i will be getting, shiiping too high on maratac.
> 
> thanx for the pics and words



Regarding shipping costs, the Maratac is an exclusive brand from County Comm and they don't ship outside US. However, you can buy it for a very reasonable price and a low shipping cost in this Group Buy (hurry up as reservations end up tomorrow)

http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=199773

In the other hand regarding IlluminaTi, shipping costs outside US from Battery Junction are way expensive... (I have purchased a couple of them, though)


----------



## compasillo (Nov 29, 2009)

Nice review Applevision :thumbsup:

I have two IlluminaTi on the way but my feeling is I will go on EDCing my Maratacs as they are the most easily 1-hand operated in the market and fit my liking as no one else


----------



## Vee3 (Nov 29, 2009)

Hooked on Fenix said:


> +1. I want one in aluminum too. Titanium makes for a poor heatsink in that little light. They can call the aluminum version the Aluminati (they are free to use that name).



The "Illuminaluminum?"


----------



## compasillo (Nov 29, 2009)

or "Aluminati", as others suggested... 
But it would be no more than a Maratac with a XP-G.
I hope Maratac/ITP/Olight will develop an upgrade on their AAA models ...


----------



## applevision (Nov 29, 2009)

Agreed that the Aluminati (love the name!) would be the Maratac with an upgraded emitter... still would be sweet since the Maratac is an extraordinary light!:twothumbs


----------



## MattK (Nov 29, 2009)

And a superior physical design, circuit (PWM rate) and user interface...


----------



## Flic (Nov 29, 2009)

MattK said:


> And a superior physical design, circuit (PWM rate) and user interface...



Agreed!


----------



## sol-leks (Nov 29, 2009)

Good review. I feel very much the same about my illuminati.
Great smooth beam, great output, great look.
Gritty threads and a low mode that is maybe a little too bright but just a tad.

BTW, nice living room.


----------



## EngrPaul (Nov 29, 2009)

There's a lot more quality for the Illuminati in my samples.

My Maratec has a skewed lens. The o-ring is very exposed on one side, and not showing on the other.

My Maratec has a dirty emitter. It's also in contact with the bottom of the reflector, so that some of the square of the emitter is gouged out. The reflector is also very close to touching the test terminals on the top of the emitter. I'm surprised the emitter isn't shorted.

The L>M>H of the IlluminaTi is better.

The PWM rate of the IlluminaTi is 5X that of the Maratec, and it shows.

The plus for the Maratec? The clip is usable without scratching the body, and it's cheap.


----------



## sabre7 (Nov 29, 2009)

MattK said:


> And a superior physical design, circuit (PWM rate) and user interface...



@MattK: Any insights on an aluminum version? :naughty:


----------



## olrac (Nov 29, 2009)

EngrPaul said:


> There's a lot more quality for the Illuminati in my samples.
> 
> My Maratec has a skewed lens. The o-ring is very exposed on one side, and not showing on the other.
> 
> ...




yeah what he said! :laughing:


----------



## MattK (Nov 29, 2009)

sabre7 said:


> @MattK: Any insights on an aluminum version? :naughty:



I have a sample in my hand...we're still waffling to be honest, the higher production cost will mean a retail of about $30-32 - even with our vastly superior product can we sell thousands of these with so much 'competition' at $20?


----------



## Flic (Nov 29, 2009)

MattK said:


> I have a sample in my hand...we're still waffling to be honest, the higher production cost will mean a retail of about $30-32 - even with our vastly superior product can we sell thousands of these with so much 'competition' at $20?



I am still waiting for my IlluminaTi to arrive, but I for one would think that the improved keychain attachment alone is worth most of the difference. The emitter upgrade would certainly account for the rest. Add the L/M/H sequence and higher PWN rate and I think you 'd have quite a few takers. Enough to justify the investment? - That's the question. The product certainly isn't in question though.

Best of luck (and I do hope your coin toss comes up in favour of production).


----------



## chaosmagnet (Nov 29, 2009)

I'd buy one.


----------



## compasillo (Nov 29, 2009)

MattK said:


> I have a sample in my hand...we're still waffling to be honest, the higher production cost will mean a retail of about $30-32 - even with our vastly superior product can we sell thousands of these with so much 'competition' at $20?



You have a sample in your hand... uhmm... so production would be imminent?
Count on me for a few ones


----------



## Patriot (Nov 29, 2009)

A better emitter, circuit, and ti body, what's not to like! Very impressive little light. Thanks for the review Apple. :thumbsup:


----------



## sabre7 (Nov 29, 2009)

@MattK: My guess would be yes, since it has advantages that could be marketed with a differentiation focus to warrant the slight additional price, such as built in keyring attachment, newer, more efficient XPG emitter, lo/med/hi sequence, better knurling, etc. It could be seen as horizontal growth rather than introduction of a totally new product. It would also seem that the higher priced Ti market would be much smaller than that for an EDC aluminum.

It should also be able compete with or even displace Maratac/iTP AAA Al sales as a new entrant in the now volatile AAA market that Maratac/iTP temporarily captured through penetration pricing.


----------



## MattK (Nov 29, 2009)

compasillo said:


> You have a sample in your hand... uhmm... so production would be imminent?
> Count on me for a few ones



It could be - I actually have 2 samples; one that is L>M>H like the Illuminati Ti and another that is H>M>L that we're considering.


----------



## sabre7 (Nov 29, 2009)

MattK said:


> It could be - I actually have 2 samples; one that is L>M>H like the Illuminati Ti and another that is H>M>L that we're considering.



FWIW, a recent poll showed L>M>H is preferred over H>M>L on CPF but I'm sure most would still buy both! Wouldn't that be great, a choice of sequences...


----------



## flasherByNight (Nov 29, 2009)

MattK said:


> I have a sample in my hand...we're still waffling to be honest, the higher production cost will mean a retail of about $30-32 - even with our vastly superior product can we sell thousands of these with so much 'competition' at $20?



longer you wait, more likely it'll tank. I'm sure theres going to be more and more competition


----------



## Frank_Zuccarini (Nov 29, 2009)

I'm in for (6) L-M-H in Al. Natural is best, but black is acceptable.

Frank


----------



## compasillo (Nov 29, 2009)

MattK said:


> It could be - I actually have 2 samples; one that is L>M>H like the Illuminati Ti and another that is H>M>L that we're considering.



Definetely I prefer M-L-H for a keychain flashlight but if I have to choose between L-M-H or H-M-L, I better stay with L-M-H. That's my vote.


----------



## compasillo (Nov 29, 2009)

sabre7 said:


> Wouldn't that be great, a choice of sequences...



+ 1


----------



## sol-leks (Nov 29, 2009)

for what its worth, I used to really like the m-l-h on my fenix LOD, but the illuminati has converted me. As much as I enjoy wowing people with a bright light, I got really tired of apologizing to people for blidning them, and an immediate 35 lumens is too much most of the time.


----------



## EngrPaul (Nov 29, 2009)

Same here.

Even worse, LD01 doesn't have an output worthy of being called "low". It was almost annoying having it there. When Maratacs came along, the LD01 was quickly kicked off my keychain because the Maratac has a reasonably low low.


----------



## jhitch (Nov 29, 2009)

MattK said:


> It could be - I actually have 2 samples; one that is L>M>H like the Illuminati Ti and another that is H>M>L that we're considering.


 
L>M>H gets my vote (and my dollar), and the lower you can get the low the better.


----------



## compasillo (Nov 29, 2009)

jhitch said:


> the lower you can get the low the better.



+ 1


----------



## Beacon of Light (Nov 29, 2009)

MattK said:


> And a superior physical design, circuit (PWM rate) and user interface...



+100 The UI is the only issue I have with iTP and Maratac. I'm going for the XP-E version of the Illuminati. Thanks for the great deal on those Matt. :thumbsup:


----------



## Beacon of Light (Nov 29, 2009)

sabre7 said:


> FWIW, a recent poll showed L>M>H is preferred over H>M>L on CPF but I'm sure most would still buy both! Wouldn't that be great, a choice of sequences...



Yep, I started that poll and the proof is in the pudding. A 3 to 1 majority voted for L/M/H over the second highest preference. That's not a questionable advantage it's a slam dunk obvious winner. I think all the other choice combined were still beat by a 2 to 1 margin of L/M/H. That to me speaks volumes.


----------



## batmanacw (Nov 29, 2009)

The two maratac lights I had did not have great fit and finish. They were sloppy. Even the SS version was not great. If this light is made by ITP, I am positive that they have to bust them out quick and dirty to make the price point for Maratac. This means less time for production of a product with a low margin for the producer. 

I bought an ITP version and it had anodized threads and a much tighter, smoother operation. Definitely nicer then the maratac. Maybe they put more time into the products they sell themselves. I am much more impressed with it. They should have made the clip recess deeper so the clip wouldn't stay sprung after turning it around. 

This light seems like the ultimate expression of a light of this basic design. I will have to pick one up when I get paid. Especially since I can't afford to buy the Jetbeam I want until January. I hope this light is as well built as it looks on the outside.


----------



## DigMe (Nov 29, 2009)

It's a good question, Matt. In this market that is so saturated with AAA lights I'm personally a little bit skeptical that you would sell multiple thousands of a $30+ Al 1xAAA. Of course many here would buy it and the XP-G would be a draw but CPFers can only account for so many. The Maratac though is not that far off from $30 if you count the high CountyComm shippng cost so there's that to think about I guess. 

brad


----------



## applevision (Nov 29, 2009)

MattK said:


> And a superior physical design, circuit (PWM rate) and user interface...





Flic said:


> Agreed!





EngrPaul said:


> There's a lot more quality for the Illuminati in my samples.
> 
> My Maratec has a skewed lens. The o-ring is very exposed on one side, and not showing on the other.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the great feedback, guys, and +1 to the above sentiments: I agree completely that the quality overall, the superior circuit, the superior user interface, the better optic, the upgraded emitter and the awesome keychain attachment all constitute a significant step above the Maratac, and this is not counting the Titanium factor! Well met! 

I didn't mean to take these things lightly. I suppose it is a testament to the curve of diminishing returns: that is to say, at this high level of competition, the smallest changes are still incredibly significant and probably take significant effort and cost, but sometimes are lost on us (me at least...) 

That said, I think that an Al version of this light would be dynamite, but golly do I agree with *flasherByNight* when he warns that "the longer you wait..."

Ugh! Who knew the AAA market would get so intense!! Oh well, congrats again MattK on a BIG HIT! And thank you again!
lovecpf


----------



## Haz (Nov 29, 2009)

If the output is to be M>L>H, or H>M>L, i would prefer a lower low level.
The current low output is fine on the IlluminaTi as it is higher than the low on the Maratac, and good for the first output.
I think the first turn of the head should produce a level of light you can and will use most of the time. If you have to cycle through on>off>on or more to get a mode you use most of the time, i think that is not good. How many people really need to have the highest output to perform their task. It may be cool to have to show off, but not really practical.

H>M>L is my least prefered. 

serious loss of night vision
unneccessary waste of light having to cycle through high, then medium and then to access low
I think most people get can by M and L to perform the task without wasting valuable battery on a AAA light.
Once people get use to the light, i think most will use L or M to conserve battery. It's a keychain light after all, so conservation is important.
M>L>H is better than H>M>L

save the highest level to the last, so you don't have to access it, unless you really need it.
medium may be more versatile, provided there is a lower low for second, for super battery saver.
L>M>H is preferred

I do think you have made the right combination here, the low is usable and then it ramps up.
Preserves night vision
use just the right amount of light for the task.
I think once people get accustom to using the light, this is the best setup.


----------



## Illumination (Nov 29, 2009)

I agree with all of you above that L-M-H is most useful for small EDCs, yet so many manufacturers choose to start on high...

I guess they are building for someone else.

This light is now on my have to have list.


----------



## Illumination (Nov 29, 2009)

Vee3 said:


> The "Illuminaluminum?"



that's very funny


----------



## Black Rose (Nov 29, 2009)

MattK said:


> It could be - I actually have 2 samples; one that is L>M>H like the Illuminati Ti and another that is H>M>L that we're considering.


That's a tough one, but it seems based on the previous poll as well as feedback in this thread, that L>M>H would be the way to go.

I'd consider an Al one if it was L>M>H or M>L>H. I'd avoid it if it was H>M>L.


----------



## davidt1 (Nov 29, 2009)

My Maratac's M/L/H is good for home use and around other people. It sucks at work where I need to use it on high all the time -- five freaking twists to get to "HIGH". What the industry needs is the High or low UI like Zebralight.


----------



## Haz (Nov 29, 2009)

davidt1 said:


> My Maratac's M/L/H is good for home use and around other people. It sucks at work where I need to use it on high all the time -- five freaking twists to get to "HIGH". What the industry needs is the High or low UI like Zebralight.


 
What sort of task do you perform with it? and often do you use it at work?
I'm trying to gauge how much utility is from work and how much is from home. I guess, ideally it would be programmable, but it is not, so you have to trade off what you want as your first output.


----------



## Phos4 (Nov 29, 2009)

jus got to play with a buddy's light

the thing is wicked bright and very well made

the threads are dog-sh*t, however, with lots of galling.

that's why no Ti lights for me

buttry smooth is how i like it

they should make this in good old fashioned aluminium

i'd by 3 of em


----------



## EngrPaul (Nov 29, 2009)

How come with the use of the three letters L, M, and H, any normal thread can be launched into a warp speed tangent? :tinfoil:


----------



## Haz (Nov 29, 2009)

Phos4 said:


> jus got to play with a buddy's light
> 
> the thing is wicked bright and very well made
> 
> ...


 
With Ti, you have to work it through for a while, keep twisting the head back and forth after lubricating the head, clean and re-lube again. It takes a bit of time, but eventually threads will feel smoother.


----------



## MKLight (Nov 30, 2009)

MattK said:


> It could be - I actually have 2 samples; one that is L>M>H like the Illuminati Ti and another that is H>M>L that we're considering.



Which emitter would you choose, XPG R5, XPE Q5, or another...upgrade...?


----------



## MojaveMoon07 (Nov 30, 2009)

MattK said:


> I have a sample in my hand...we're still waffling to be honest, the higher production cost will mean a retail of about $30-32 - even with our vastly superior product can we sell thousands of these with so much 'competition' at $20?


I think so due to in large part to the fact that I'm pretty sure at least most of the three stage AAA lights that are discussed on this forum range in price from ~ $ 40 to $ 65; shoppers like myself are hungry for AAA choices in the $ 20 to _(low)_ $ 30 range, and right now the iTP/Maratac three stage AAA light is the only one I can think of in that range.

Here's a thought on what might motivate the people outside of cpf to buy your aluminum light instead of the iTP -- on your website how about using charts similar to these where you demonstrate the advantage of a higher PWM ?
http://www.fenixlight.com/viewproduct.asp?id=85

The PWM that some have seen in the iTP is the reason I've held off on buying it; if you can deliver for $ 30 to $ 32 a product that has everything from the illumanati, then I'll definitely buy one ASAP
i.e., you've got my very enthusiastic vote


----------



## MojaveMoon07 (Nov 30, 2009)

Maybe another strategy that motivate people to buy a alluminati instead of an iTP is if you sold it in a choice of at least two colors with one of the colors being one that would appeal to women; I see a lot of guys on cpf asking for flashlight recommendations for their wives.


----------



## MojaveMoon07 (Nov 30, 2009)

Here's another thing working in your favor:

At 2.66”, I think that literally the only other AAA light that might be as small is the iTP. With some AAA buyers looking for somthing as compact as possible and with the iTP maybe being your only competition in that size, then maybe what would draw the John Q. Public to buying your light is on your website use plain non-cpf language to highlight the strengths of the alluminati that differentiate it from the iTP.


----------



## Vee3 (Nov 30, 2009)

MojaveMoon07 said:


> Maybe another strategy that motivate people to buy a alluminati instead of an iTP is if you sold it in a choice of at least two colors with one of the colors being one that would appeal to women; I see a lot of guys on cpf asking for flashlight recommendations for their wives.



Yup. Girl-friendly anything is often helpful for sales; I'm surprised the flashlight industry hasn't capitalized on it too well yet. Smith & Wesson got a lot of women carrying guns with their LadySmith® revolvers.

A standard model flashlight with a lipstick-pink head and 'LadyLite' logo on it would sell. Girls could care less about the latest LED and hard anodizing, so the cost could be kept lower than the manly version. Girls like 'cute' little things, so an AAA light would be perfect.


----------



## Flic (Nov 30, 2009)

While we are on the topic of colour, I do hope any eventual Alluminati will be available in Natural. WAY too many black lights in my life. That in part is why I am so pleased with the IlluminaTi.


----------



## MattK (Nov 30, 2009)

WOW - thanks for all of the input!

Just so we're clear their would definitely be a L>M>H version - the question is whether we split the batch make a portion of them in H>M>L or perhaps M>L>H.


----------



## HKJ (Nov 30, 2009)

MattK said:


> WOW - thanks for all of the input!
> 
> Just so we're clear their would definitely be a L>M>H version - the question is whether we split the batch make a portion of them in H>M>L or perhaps M>L>H.



I have not received my IlluminaTi yet, but I am very curious how low the low is. I want the first level to be the most used level, i.e. high enough to get my bearings (inside), but definitely not maximum output (This is not any kind of tactical light).
I.e. if you low is very low I would prefer M-L-H sequence, else L-M-H.


----------



## sol-leks (Nov 30, 2009)

HKJ said:


> I have not received my IlluminaTi yet, but I am very curious how low the low is. I want the first level to be the most used level, i.e. high enough to get my bearings (inside), but definitely not maximum output (This is not any kind of tactical light).
> I.e. if you low is very low I would prefer M-L-H sequence, else L-M-H.



I think you will be happy with it then. It is definitely higher than 3 lumens but it is still definitely not too bright. I'd hazard to say it is about 12-13 lumens, bright than my E01 but not as bright as my LOD on low.


----------



## Tempsho (Nov 30, 2009)

Is there any chance of there being a single mode Illuminati Ti? I have a single mode iTP and I love it. I also love the look of titanium, but I would only want it in single mode. (2 mode would also be aceptable)


----------



## applevision (Nov 30, 2009)

HKJ said:


> I have not received my IlluminaTi yet, but I am very curious how low the low is. I want the first level to be the most used level, i.e. high enough to get my bearings (inside), but definitely not maximum output (This is not any kind of tactical light).
> I.e. if you low is very low I would prefer M-L-H sequence, else L-M-H.



*HKJ*, I am (as always) looking forward to your thoughts on this very nice light.

In my opinion, the low is pretty darn usable inside. For me, I like it since most of my needs inside are during the middle of the night when things are pitch black, and a little bit will do you. What's great is that you can then blast out a mini-wall of light with a few quick twists when you need it, but your night vision (or the baby's) isn't ruined by having to flash more brightly first. I like it a lot.


----------



## HKJ (Nov 30, 2009)

sol-leks said:


> I think you will be happy with it then. It is definitely higher than 3 lumens but it is still definitely not too bright. I'd hazard to say it is about 12-13 lumens, bright than my E01 but not as bright as my LOD on low.



That sounds like a very good level, I am looking forward to get it (But the customs probably want to play with it for some time, before I get it).




applevision said:


> *HKJ*, I am (as always) looking forward to your thoughts on this very nice light.
> 
> In my opinion, the low is pretty darn usable inside. For me, I like it since most of my needs inside are during the middle of the night when things are pitch black, and a little bit will do you. What's great is that you can then blast out a mini-wall of light with a few quick twists when you need it, but your night vision (or the baby's) isn't ruined by having to flash more brightly first. I like it a lot.



I like the idea of a usable first level and the possibility to crank it up to a very bright level, when needed.
I am going to write a couple (or more) of reviews during December, including IlluminaTi, but also other small and big lights. But most will be in Danish (Except the one I am going to publish very soon).


----------



## MattK (Nov 30, 2009)

Tempsho said:


> Is there any chance of there being a single mode Illuminati Ti? I have a single mode iTP and I love it. I also love the look of titanium, but I would only want it in single mode. (2 mode would also be aceptable)



No but that's the idea of the H>M>L version - since it wouldn't have memory it would be like a single mode every time you used it UNLESS you wanted to access the other levels.


----------



## mcnair55 (Nov 30, 2009)

MattK said:


> I have a sample in my hand...we're still waffling to be honest, the higher production cost will mean a retail of about $30-32 - even with our vastly superior product can we sell thousands of these with so much 'competition' at $20?




Count me in just to have the lo-m-high system alone, makes sense.:wave:


----------



## fleegs (Nov 30, 2009)

My recommendation is 

LL (a real 1 lumen or less) -M (20 ish) -H (80 ish) in Ti I think would sell on CPF

and

M (20 ish) -H (80 ish) in Aluminum would sell on CPF and online.


I am not sure what age range buy what brightness but I have read here that the older you get the more light you need to see.

From what I have seen these models would handle the entire market (flashaholics and general population).

How would I spend my money? Well I have not bought the IllumniTi because the low is too high. If it is bright enough to hurt my dark adapted eyes then M-L-H is no different to me. Especially if the M-L-H version has a lower low then I would buy that over the L-M-H with a higher low. 

What do I own? I have a lot of ITP A3s (30 ish) in all Aluminum except 1 SS. I have not bought the Ti. No point for me. I buy for user interface. 

What would I buy? I am looking for a lower low AAA in any material to spend money on.


That said, I wonder if a AAA with LL-L-M-H in Ti would sell? For me- 0.5 lumen, 2-5 lumen, 20-30 lumen and 80-100 lumen.

Good Luck,
Rob


----------



## Dan FO (Nov 30, 2009)

Ok, I bought the IlluminaTi, ITP A3 EOS SS and a ITP A3 EOS Titanium at the same time. The A3 SS was flawless from the get go and the A3 Titanium was also flawless but the action was a little stiffer. The IlluminaTi was basically dead on arrival. I tried the head on the other two bodies and got it to flicker a little but still no go. I then cleaned all threads on all 3 lights and relubed them along cleaning all contact points with DeoxIT including the springs. Still nothing. I then tightened the head down on the IlluminaTi and smacked it bezel down on a wooden butcher block. I then tried it again and it has functioned as it should ever since. Evidently something in the head was not making contact and the smack (bezel down) completed the electrical path that was not secure. The threads are nowhere as smooth as the ones on the ITP A3 Titanium but I am sure the will work in with time.


----------



## rumack (Nov 30, 2009)

I EDC a Fenix L0D Q4 and like the M>L>H, but I often use low so I think I would be good with L>M>H as well. I would like a lower low than the Fenix, though. For me the H>M>L is the least appealing. Yes, it's nice for the "WOW!" factor showing friends, but that is rare to non-existent for me since none of my friends are flashaholics and they think I'm a bit looney (can't argue with them there). A programmable sequence would be nice but if I was voting for any fancy electronics I would vote for battery protection. I am starting to embrace NiMH rechargeables in a big way and I would love to be able to protect them from over discharge.

I think an aluminum version of the IlluminaTi would be great! I don't have any titanium lights but from what I have read I think I would prefer the smoother threads of the aluminum. I think the superior keyring attachment of the IlluminaTi style would be a big selling point. I don't like to carry any light heavier than a Photon Freedom Micro on my keys, yet the weak looking keyring attachment on the Maratac was a turnoff to me. Like I said, I can be a little looney.  Add in the better PWM rate and it would be a winner!

My ideal lumen levels would be L (maybe 3-5 ish), M (25-30), H (90 or higher). I like the high to be as high as possible, while giving 20-30 minutes runtime and not cooking the light.

@Dan FO - I'm a big proponent of percussive maintenance too! :twothumbs It's amazing how often it's actually useful.


----------



## Phos4 (Nov 30, 2009)

wow

percussive maintanace

you guys are a pizza work!


----------



## sol-leks (Dec 1, 2009)

I think I've had some success loosening up the threading on my illuminati with help from the lovely ppl at cpf.

I cleaned the threads with a q tip and an isopropyl wipe.

I took out the battery and worked the threads for a while.

I lastly discovered that without a battery the threads worked pretty smoothly but once the battery was in it was tough again, so it occurred to me that maybe the spring was...not springy enough. So i used the battery to try and work the spring, and I think it def helped. So if anyone is having similar problems maybe this will help, I'm no expert but I don't see how it could do any harm.

Basically, when breaking in your illuminati, don't forget to work the spring too.


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Dec 1, 2009)

In my opinion, the brightness settings are fine where they are at. Leave them alone. 3 lumens is a decent usable low. It's about as bright as my old Gerber Infinity Ultra that is still used today as a tent light and reading light. The medium at 30 lumens hits the sweet spot for the XP-G for efficiency at nearly 160 lumens/watt (this sweet spot is between 60-80 mAh or 25-35 lumens). That would be the most used as well as the most efficient level. The high is about as bright as you can get while still getting over an hour on lithiums, and not cooking the l.e.d. too much.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Dec 1, 2009)

fleegs said:


> My recommendation is
> 
> LL (a real 1 lumen or less) -M (20 ish) -H (80 ish) in Ti I think would sell on CPF
> 
> ...



I like this guy! We think alike! I was hoping someone would make a dedicated low level light. I do already have my Jetbeat Jet I Pro set to 2lumen/ 5 lumen / 7 lumen (not low enough though) that basically functions for that type of light and the LF2XT in a similar fashion. I would like to see a 3 level light: .02lumen dark side of the moon mode / .2 moon mode/ 2 lumen low mode. I might be the only customer of such a light though.


----------



## AKWolf (Dec 1, 2009)

Very nice comparison applevision ! What I really want though is an "Aluminati" configuration instead of Ti...:devil:


----------



## Woods Walker (Dec 1, 2009)

Anyone else here feel that this light in Al or SS, with current UI and 1XAA would be one heck of an EDC.


----------



## MattK (Dec 2, 2009)

or 1 x CR123a....


----------



## Woods Walker (Dec 2, 2009)

MattK said:


> or 1 x CR123a....


 
Sure, why not. :twothumbs The iTP 3-mode EOS you sold me is great but don't own a twisty 1XAA and this might be nice with my other AA gear inside the pack like the GPS and headlamp. I find the 2 ish lumen lows good but that is just me. I would dislike more than 3 modes on a twisty. Thinking that would get old real fast.


----------



## applevision (Dec 2, 2009)

MattK said:


> or 1 x CR123a....



Ohhh nice!

While we open that can, could I ask: what about the CR2 battery size? Not to get too OT, but that seems like a very efficient little package that is underutilized. I never even bought that NiteCore model but it makes me think... Battery gurus, are these efficient, pound for pound, or are the CR123s the way to go? /Off-topic...


----------



## MattK (Dec 2, 2009)

Yah, I like CR2's also - I wish there was a CR1/2AA size - that would be an amazing micro flashlight power source. CR2's are almost as fat as CR123A's but are ~7mm shorter. CR2 Energy density is about the same as CR123A - maybe slightly lower.

CR1/3N are also interesting but simply don't have enough capacity. This is why many traditional keychain lights use 2 x CR2032 - great power density in a compact size.


----------



## kaichu dento (Dec 2, 2009)

fleegs said:


> That said, I wonder if a AAA with LL-L-M-H in Ti would sell? For me- 0.5 lumen, 2-5 lumen, 20-30 lumen and 80-100 lumen.
> 
> Good Luck,
> Rob


That is exactly what my perfect AAA would be too, although I think I'd like closer to .02 > .2 > 5 > 50!


Beacon of Light said:


> I would like to see a 3 level light: .02lumen dark side of the moon mode / .2 moon mode/ 2 lumen low mode. I might be the only customer of such a light though.


I would buy one of these too, but would definitely prefer 4 level as described above. Add one more level anywhere in the realm of 15-50 lumens and I could see myself carrying it all the time!


----------



## lightcacher (Dec 2, 2009)

I have a Maratac AAA stainless steel and I don't see that the IlluminaTi offers any significant advantages over what I already have. When the cost is figured in, the Maratac still outshines it.


----------



## RH (Dec 2, 2009)

Hi Matt,

I'm excited about the possibility of an aluminum version as I am not a real fan of Titanium lights. One thing I would love to see as an option would be a small, reliable, mechanical clicky.

The LiteFlux has a small switch but it is not mechanical which makes it harder to use and there is no satisfying click. The Preon has a mechanical switch but it is huge and at least initially, does not seem very reliable.

To summarize, I love the current Maratac. I'm looking for my next light to be:

1) Small like the Maratac
2) L/M/H
3) Aluminum
4) Clicky (I know this will add some length)

I hope you can consider adding a clicky option.

Thanks,
Robert


----------



## MattK (Dec 2, 2009)

EngrPaul has written a detailed review: 
XP-G R5 1xAAA Titanium Flashlights: IlluminaTi vs. Preon  

lightcacher - 25-30% brighter, lighter, stonger material, longer runtime, superior design (keychain, tailstanding, etc) seem to add up to, "significant advantages," to me. YMMV.

We've toyed with the idea of a tailcap switch - frankly I'd be more inclined towards a momentary for a light of this size - it would be much smaller and more reliable and the nature of a light this size is you need it for a few seconds or maybe a few minutes - for a few seconds you have momentary, if you need it for extended runs it is easy enough to give it a twist.


----------



## RH (Dec 2, 2009)

Hi Matt,

A momentary switch sounds like an even better option! I hope it sees production!

Thanks,
Robert


----------



## Tempsho (Dec 2, 2009)

So no chance at all of a single mode version I guess huh. Oh well


----------



## MattK (Dec 3, 2009)

No - but we may offer an aluminum version with a H>M>L sequence which would effectively be a 1 mode if you never cycle to lower levels.


----------



## davidt1 (Dec 3, 2009)

How about a 2-mode light with L and H? Or a light with a toggle switch that can toggle between H-M-L and L-M-H? I am just brainstorming here. If I were a light maker, these are the kind of things I would do to differentiate myself.


----------



## TDL (Dec 4, 2009)

A momentary tail switch, twisty AAA sounds very interesting and practical. lovecpf


----------



## Elliot (Dec 4, 2009)

MattK said:


> No - but we may offer an aluminum version with a H>M>L sequence which would effectively be a 1 mode if you never cycle to lower levels.



:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: Count me in for BOTH. 



MattK said:


> No - a H>M>L sequence which would effectively be a 1 mode if you never cycle to lower levels.



Very Smart: I carry two lights now. Low on keychain and High clipped on belt opposite weapon. I would be laughted at (or worse) switching modes.


----------



## Beacon of Light (Dec 6, 2009)

kaichu dento said:


> That is exactly what my perfect AAA would be too, although I think I'd like closer to .02 > .2 > 5 > 50!
> 
> I would buy one of these too, but would definitely prefer 4 level as described above. Add one more level anywhere in the realm of 15-50 lumens and I could see myself carrying it all the time!



if it was a 4 level I would prefer .02 lumens / .2 lumens / 2 lumens / 20 lumens. Would be perfect. I can't recall the last time I ever needed even 10 lumens. 

My E01 is too bright. Wish there was a way to under drive the emitter to bring it to half as bright and that would be my go to bright light.


----------



## sol-leks (Dec 6, 2009)

Lol, are you a mole or some other kind of sub terrestrial dwelling creature?


----------



## Beacon of Light (Dec 6, 2009)

No, but I prefer to have the longest runtime with the least light that's necessary.


----------



## Haz (Dec 6, 2009)

sol-leks said:


> Lol, are you a mole or some other kind of sub terrestrial dwelling creature?


 




that's hillarious!!!


----------



## dirtech (Dec 6, 2009)

MattK said:


> I have a sample in my hand...we're still waffling to be honest, the higher production cost will mean a retail of about $30-32 - even with our vastly superior product can we sell thousands of these with so much 'competition' at $20?



Well I'll finally buy one if you do!


----------



## TDL (Dec 7, 2009)

we costumers as a whole are kind of strange as it seems many people look only after price alone while others like me are willing to spend more as long as we can see/feel the product is technologically superior, easier to use or carry, more efficient, more durable, etc. I understand why manufacturerers have to weight these factors so carefully, so that they could stay in business.


----------



## irjws (Dec 7, 2009)

I got in my IlluminaTi last week, great light. More of a flood light but excellent beam, threads were a little stiff and gritty, but have softened up and smoothed out quite a bit, (coated with never seeze). The modes are OK, but a memory would be much better and make the light more usable. That way the mode the light comes on with is the last one you used, this would be my suggestion.


----------



## Phos4 (Dec 7, 2009)

irjws said:


> I got in my IlluminaTi last week, great light. More of a flood light but excellent beam, threads were a little stiff and gritty, but have softened up and smoothed out quite a bit, (coated with never seeze). The modes are OK, but a memory would be much better and make the light more usable. That way the mode the light comes on with is the last one you used, this would be my suggestion.



this is a top quality post
hearing the real deal from the trenches is worth its weight in gold
i am sold on the illuminati as being the top aaa light of 2009!
well done mattyk!


----------



## MattK (Dec 7, 2009)

irjws said:


> I got in my IlluminaTi last week, great light. More of a flood light but excellent beam, threads were a little stiff and gritty, but have softened up and smoothed out quite a bit, (coated with never seeze). The modes are OK, but a memory would be much better and make the light more usable. That way the mode the light comes on with is the last one you used, this would be my suggestion.



UI is tough. I promise you if we'd added memory tons of people would NOT have bought it because of that. The idea of ALWAYS starting on low is that you never hammer your night vision and it doesn't take much to mturn it up to the level that you need.



Phos4 said:


> this is a top quality post
> hearing the real deal from the trenches is worth its weight in gold
> i am sold on the illuminati as being the top aaa light of 2009!
> well done mattyk!



Thanks!


----------



## davidt1 (Dec 7, 2009)

MattK said:


> UI is tough. I promise you if we'd added memory tons of people would NOT have bought it because of that. The idea of ALWAYS starting on low is that you never hammer your night vision and it doesn't take much to mturn it up to the level that you need.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!



I used to think that way, but after having to repeatedly twist 5 times to get to high in a hurry at work with my Maratac, I now would do anything for a light with memory. But not just any memory, it has to be 2 second or less.


----------



## kaichu dento (Dec 7, 2009)

Beacon of Light said:


> if it was a 4 level I would prefer .02 lumens / .2 lumens / 2 lumens / 20 lumens. Would be perfect. I can't recall the last time I ever needed even 10 lumens.
> 
> My E01 is too bright. Wish there was a way to under drive the emitter to bring it to half as bright and that would be my go to bright light.


I am so glad to see posts by people who have found how useful the low levels really are. For me there are still times when I want the ability to see what's making noise in the brush 100 feet away but my most used level on all my lights is the lowest available setting.


sol-leks said:


> Lol, are you a mole or some other kind of sub terrestrial dwelling creature?


:nana:


----------



## Beacon of Light (Dec 8, 2009)

kaichu dento said:


> I am so glad to see posts by people who have found how useful the low levels really are. For me there are still times when I want the ability to see what's making noise in the brush 100 feet away but my most used level on all my lights is the lowest available setting.
> 
> :nana:



We may have disagreed on tint bin in the past, but I'm glad we can agree on loving a low low on some of these newer lights. :twothumbs


----------



## sol-leks (Dec 8, 2009)

I finally got a chance to go look for some lubricant for the threads of my illuminati.

I bought "Innovative Scuba Concepts Silicone Grease". Does that sound like the right kind of stuff for this light?

Also, can I use this grease on my aluminum lights too?


----------



## sabre7 (Dec 8, 2009)

sol-leks said:


> I finally got a chance to go look for some lubricant for the threads of my illuminati.
> 
> I bought "Innovative Scuba Concepts Silicone Grease". Does that sound like the right kind of stuff for this light?
> 
> Also, can I use this grease on my aluminum lights too?



Shouldn't hurt either type of metal, but I would also consider trying white lithium grease or Militec-1 synthetic weapons lubricant.


----------



## sol-leks (Dec 8, 2009)

synthetic weapons lubricant? Is that really necessary?


----------



## sabre7 (Dec 8, 2009)

^ Not _necessary_ but its good stuff, not very expensive at all & it bonds with the metal when heated- like when a gun fires or when a flashlight heats up. 

It forms a dry lubricant on the metal so you don't have to keep lubing the threads all the time. Its meant for guns so they don't attract sand & dust contamination in dirty environments like the desert.


----------



## notsobrite (Dec 8, 2009)

does anyone have a pic of the illuminati with the clip attached? or point me in the right direction, please:duh2:


----------



## kaichu dento (Dec 10, 2009)

Beacon of Light said:


> We may have disagreed on tint bin in the past, but I'm glad we can agree on loving a low low on some of these newer lights. :twothumbs


It seems like just recently there were a fair number of members who thought that levels below 2 lumens were ludicrous, but apparently more and more of them are finding how valuable it is when you're truly in the dark!

Although the LF2Xt goes to a decently low level, it's still a lot higher than I wish it could be.


----------



## compasillo (Dec 10, 2009)

kaichu dento said:


> It seems like just recently there were a fair number of members who thought that levels below 2 lumens were ludicrous, but apparently more and more of them are finding how valuable it is when you're truly in the dark!
> 
> Although the LF2Xt goes to a decently low level, it's still a lot higher than I wish it could be.




I do appreciate the low low levels quite a lot as they are absolutely useful and essential in my EDC flashlights.


----------



## HighLight (Dec 18, 2009)

davidt1 said:


> I used to think that way, but after having to repeatedly twist 5 times to get to high in a hurry at work with my Maratac, I now would do anything for a light with memory. But not just any memory, it has to be 2 second or less.



Why 5 twists? I thought the Maratac had the M-L-H interface? Wouldn't it just take 3 quick twists?


----------



## Dan FO (Dec 18, 2009)

HighLight said:


> Why 5 twists? I thought the Maratac had the M-L-H interface? Wouldn't it just take 3 quick twists?



on, off, on, off, on = 4


----------



## Flashlike (Dec 18, 2009)

Dan FO said:


> on, off, on, off, on = 4



_Ummm..._ Didn't you intend to say "on, off, on, off, on = *5*"?


----------



## Dan FO (Dec 18, 2009)

Flashlike said:


> _Ummm..._ Didn't you intend to say "on, off, on, off, on = *5*"?



YUP :green:


----------



## HighLight (Dec 19, 2009)

HighLight said:


> Why 5 twists? I thought the Maratac had the M-L-H interface? Wouldn't it just take 3 quick twists?



yes it's 5..Don't know what I was thinking when I said 3


----------



## davidt1 (Dec 19, 2009)

A clickie light would get to "high" mode in 3 clicks, but even that is still 3 too many. I want instant access to "high" or "low" like I can with my Zebralight H501. It's hardd to understand until you are in a situation where you need maximum lumens immediately.


----------



## Buckley (Jan 7, 2010)

MattK,

Any word yet on an aluminum version? FWIW, you can add my name to the list of those who would definitely buy the L-M-H version.


----------



## Snow (Jan 7, 2010)

I have had my Illuminati for about a week now and I'm loving it. The Maratac looks to have a lot going for it but with the ridiculous shipping price, its overall cost is dangerously close to the price of the IlluminaTi. It's my first Ti light and I am very happy with it. I am still waiting for the threads to smooth out a bit. The levels are well spaced. Low could be lower and I wouldn't complain, but it works where it's at as well.

And I agree with MattK about memory. UI is tricky and no matter what you do, there will be people who wish it was different.


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 7, 2010)

Snow said:


> The Maratac looks to have a lot going for it but with the ridiculous shipping price, its overall cost is dangerously close to the price of the IlluminaTi.


That's why I buy my Maratacs on the MarketPlace and now have two SS Maratacs. Great knurling!


----------



## compasillo (Jan 7, 2010)

Buckley said:


> MattK,
> 
> Any word yet on an aluminum version? FWIW, you can add my name to the list of those who would definitely buy the L-M-H version.



Doesn't seem it's gonna happen shortly

Take a look at the illuminati sales thread, post 904

http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=200862&page=31


----------

