# Sub-Lumen "Moonlight" Mode Poll



## reppans (Jul 26, 2012)

Everybody seems to want a killer Max mode - but what about the other end of the spectrum? What does the general CPF community think about the ultra low lows - the sub-lumen "moonlight" modes?

EDIT: Just for reference, here's a sample of some popular brands/lights with sub-lumen modes (manuf. spec/my meter reading):


----------



## kj2 (Jul 26, 2012)

I like moon-mode. First when I heard of it, I thought why would you ever use moon-mode??. Now that I have the Thrunite T10- I use it a lot. Very handy at night so you don't wake everybody.


----------



## madecov (Jul 26, 2012)

Just voted, I have a Moonlight mode on one light and I never use it. I usually use High or Medium. I use strobe more often than moonlight.


----------



## CMAG (Jul 26, 2012)

I like a Low Low Low but not sub lu


----------



## bushmattster (Jul 26, 2012)

I don't use it that much, but I like the extended runtime. I'm just as happy with 1-3 lumens.


----------



## Ezeriel (Jul 26, 2012)

You can put me down for - Desirable, a "pro" feature


It's kinda of a wasted setting for anyone that already has it on a light.. now that I have a H502 I don't need it on anything else

...but the more light levels the better.

Gimme a LD20 with 6-10 light levels, when the head is loose, and you will see a VERY happy camper


----------



## lampeDépêche (Jul 26, 2012)

I use sub-lumen levels all the time, both on my EDC headlamp (a ZL H600w), and on my EDC hand-torch (Quark AA in TI, #366, running 14500). At night, I seldom need more around the house. For reading in bed, anything more than a lumen is an annoyance to the dearly beloved.

Yeah, I think they're great. Part of why I like the Quark regular UI is that it comes on in sub-lumen mode if you have the head loose.


----------



## TweakMDS (Jul 26, 2012)

A must, but not necessarily on all my lights. I love it on the D25A and C clickies, but not needed on larger lights.


----------



## CarpentryHero (Jul 26, 2012)

I love the sublumen low lows, I always have atleast one light with me with an ultra low, my back up light tends to be the 750+ lumen light  and that's because I need it less often


----------



## pjandyho (Jul 26, 2012)

I am not too sure if it would be a top priority in my light purchase since it was never really a consideration before I buy a light so I voted desirable. Would be great to have, and some of my lights do have low low output which is useful for times when I either don't want to advertise my presense and position, or doesn't want to disturb someone who is sleeping.


----------



## scout24 (Jul 26, 2012)

I voted Desirable, a pro feature. I use Sub-Lumen as much as anything else, it's amazing in true darkness how much light it really is. I don't need it on EVERY light I own, but generally carry one with the capability. Probably half of the "users" I own can go sub-lumen, and have been chosen for this attribute in addition to their quality.


----------



## gunga (Jul 26, 2012)

I love it. After my eyes are night adjusted, sub lumen is great!


----------



## Jvalera (Jul 26, 2012)

I need it !! try reading a pocket book with 300 lumens while waiting for the wife in the car..lol


----------



## ganzo (Jul 26, 2012)

For me it's a "pro" feature. I use 0.6 lumen mode on my zebra sc50w+ for reading Kindle at night a lot.


----------



## Racer (Jul 26, 2012)

It's a must for me. What I noticed collecting flashlights for a couple years is that most seemed over-powered (not to mention bulky) for what I wanted in an EDC. Now I mostly carry a T10 as well. Every once in a while it's under-powered, and I need to grab a more powerful light. But most of the time the three modes it has are perfect. I get a lot of mileage out of the moonlight mode.


----------



## DavidMB (Jul 26, 2012)

I've heard it said here before, but I think a low, low, moonlight is just as important as how bright a light gets.


----------



## blackbalsam (Jul 26, 2012)

I love the sub lumen mode. Most of my Milkyspits have that option and i like that to be the first one to come on. If I need a higher output it is easily reached by a few soft touches of the clicky switch.......Robert.


----------



## Haesslich (Jul 26, 2012)

I now make it a habit to carry one light with a sub-lumen mode. It gives me hours upon hours of use, especially when my eyes are night-adapted, or else I don't want to dazzle myself just to make my way through a room or a hallway. Plus, you'd be surprised how usable low-low light can be in areas where you don't have 50000 streetlamps, just to see what's just up ahead, or close to your feet.


----------



## Retinator (Jul 26, 2012)

Low modes rule for the middle of the night snack or whatever.

Invictus is deadly for this............. set it to low 2 lumen mode, wake up, go for the switch, press in too far (800), back to bed........with a headache

And remember the amount of light you need is proportional to the amount of sleepy dirt in the eyes!


----------



## skyfire (Jul 26, 2012)

i dont really use sub-lumen for any tasks.
my prefer low is around 2-4 lumens.


----------



## Fastpowerstroker (Jul 26, 2012)

Always use it on my quark AA for reading maps at night or walking around the house. It's a big priority for me.


----------



## climberkid (Jul 26, 2012)

I'm struggling without my sub lumen light right now. I sent home with my wife my Thrunite Ti, and have off for repair my hi-cri V11R. Actually it's on it's way back, but regardless.....I'm still without any sub lumen lights at the moment and it's a bother at night.


----------



## Brasso (Jul 26, 2012)

I probably use moonlight mode more than any other setting.


----------



## PayBack (Jul 26, 2012)

With my poor 45 year old eyes I thought I could use Sub-Lumen mode to help find lights in the dark.. when was surprised that the light was actually usable. The low on my 4Sevens G5 and my Zebralight SC600 can actually be used to navigate by (no sure if they're both Sub) and even the lowest setting on my Zebralight H502 which is 0.01 Lm is enough for a locator and to illuminate the light next to it. 0.06 is too bright just to locate a light and can be used to navigate by. 

I envy how it looks for some 18 year old


----------



## fnj (Jul 27, 2012)

A light whose fundamental design lends itself to moon mode (just about all clickies and repeat-twisties) but does not have a moon mode implemented is a broken design and does not interest me at all. A moon mode which does not give a runtime in the multiple hundreds of hours at the least is a poor design and is not likely to interest me.

Obviously I exclude from my condemnation highly specialized lights like the Lummi Wee.


----------



## Up All Night (Jul 27, 2012)

A few years ago I really didn't think such a level would be of any use to me. Then I picked up a Quark AA and then a Zeb SC600 and I'm finding it quite useful. It's amazing how bright a sub lumen is when your eyes are adjusted. The other night I was going through a drawer while using the Quark and I found it a little bright. I cycled through to get to moonlight only to realize that it was on moonlight, I thought it was on low! Very useful indeed!
If a light has other attributes I desire, the lack of a moonlight mode wouldn't be a deal killer.


----------



## Jash (Jul 27, 2012)

When I first received my Quark regular (in neutral), I really didn't like the UI. Especially that it came on in moonlight mode every time.

However, it has become my bedside light and is now the most important light I use daily. It gives me the ability to turn on one light without waking my wife, walk to the back yard and see what it is the dog is barking at (nearly always a damned possum!!) with a few soft presses on the tail end.

If only I could have a Quark that could switch between being a regular UI and a Tactical UI.


----------



## Outdoorsman5 (Jul 27, 2012)

On my edc and general use lights, a sub-lumen output is a must. I use sub-lumen every morning for navigating around my bedroom & house without waking my wife up. I also use it on every campout if I wake up at night. We use it quite often as a night light for the kids when camping and on some of our vacations. 

Before I used moonlight, I thought it was a waste. It seemed too dim until I needed a light more & more when it was pitch black. 0.3 lumens is quite bright when there is no other light around, and your eyes are adjusted for it.


----------



## Wiggle (Jul 27, 2012)

It's a good feature to have. I find the sub-lumen pissing matches get a little ridiculous though .".2 lumens is way too bright, I need .01 lumens max" for example.


----------



## mhs (Jul 27, 2012)

I use sub-lumen (usually red) light for navigating in total darkness not to shock my eyes and preserve night vision. I also don't mind if it's first mode light turns on.


----------



## WadeF (Jul 27, 2012)

I probably use sub-lumen modes more than anything else. Normally when I need a flashlight I'm in near total darkness, so I don't want more than 1 lumen if I just need to find my way around the bedroom, hallway, check on the kids, etc.


----------



## RobertM (Jul 27, 2012)

Appreciating sub-lumen output levels is a sign of a maturing flashaholic.


----------



## Ti²C (Jul 27, 2012)

the ultra-low is a must have, but it should be paired with decent driver efficency !
what good is a killer low if you don't have killer runtimes ?


----------



## think2x (Jul 27, 2012)

Love and Use sub-Lumen low nightly.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Jul 27, 2012)

At least in a pocket sized light I only consider those with a "moonlight" mode. I wish more lights had this feature.

Geoff


----------



## Overclocker (Jul 27, 2012)

Flying Turtle said:


> At least in a pocket sized light I only consider those with a "moonlight" mode. I wish more lights had this feature.
> 
> Geoff




same there. absolute necessity in a small light. but for a bigger light it's still nice to have but not absolutely needed


----------



## Overclocker (Jul 27, 2012)

someone should show this poll to FENIX


----------



## reppans (Jul 28, 2012)

With over a hundred votes, I think we're about as statistically accurate as we're going to get. 

It's almost hard to believe that with such high approval ratings among flashaholics, it's still pretty rare to find sub-lumen flashlights outside of a handful of manufacturers like HDS, Zebralight, FourSevens and Thrunite. I guess it boils down to costs and marketing - the added cost of a buck driver vs the added sales from what is most likely considered to be a counter-intuitive feature to the uninitiated. Unfortunately, the experienced flashaholic is probably just a small fraction of the market, and like producing warm tint variants, it just isn't worth it for most manufacturers.


----------



## pjandyho (Jul 28, 2012)

reppans said:


> With over a hundred votes, I think we're about as statistically accurate as we're going to get.
> 
> It's almost hard to believe that with such high approval ratings among flashaholics, it's still pretty rare to find sub-lumen flashlights outside of a handful of manufacturers like HDS, Zebralight, FourSevens and Thrunite. I guess it boils down to costs and marketing - the added cost of a buck driver vs the added sales from what is most likely considered to be a counter-intuitive feature to the uninitiated. Unfortunately, the experienced flashaholic is probably just a small fraction of the market, and like producing warm tint variants, it just isn't worth it for most manufacturers.


I think you nailed it. Only a true blue and matured flashaholic would understand the usefulness of sub lumen output. The general public would only want the brightest possible. In the manufacturer's viewpoint, why add on the additional manufacturing costs for something appreciated by so few?


----------



## reppans (Jul 28, 2012)

pjandyho said:


> I think you nailed it. Only a true blue and matured flashaholic would understand the usefulness of sub lumen output. The general public would only want the brightest possible. In the manufacturer's viewpoint, why add on the additional manufacturing costs for something appreciated by so few?



I guess our redeeming quality is that we proportionately buy far more product for ourselves and as gifts, and even more importantly, are subject matter experts that can enthusiastically recommend products on the myriad of public internet forums in what is primarily a word-of-mouth industry. I'll admit to being a moonlight "pusher."

I just hope the light manufacturers monitor some of these threads.


----------



## pjandyho (Jul 28, 2012)

reppans said:


> I guess our redeeming quality is that we proportionately buy far more product for ourselves and as gifts, and even more importantly, are subject matter experts that can enthusiastically recommend products on the myriad of public internet forums in what is primarily a word-of-mouth industry. I'll admit to being a moonlight "pusher."
> 
> I just hope the light manufacturers monitor some of these threads.


Agree! I am known as the flashlight evangelist amongst my friends. Personally I am happy to have garnered some flashlight converts under my belt.


----------



## moozooh (Jul 28, 2012)

I'll play the devil's advocate here, for discussion's sake. In my opinion, the usefulness of sublumen modes as compared to, say, one lumen (which is, technically, the lowest non-sublumen brightness), is really overstated, even overhyped.

I see going below 1 lm useful for about two things: _continually_ doing something near sleeping people, or doing as much as possible to conceal your position without leaving yourself in the dark. For everything else you don't _need_ it that low if you can point the light away (such as at the ceiling) or just cover the lens a little bit/palm-bounce the beam. (Oftentimes, when I read about people complaining their 3 lm flashlights are too bright when they use it in the middle of the night, it always seems like they're pointing them at their faces.)

If you're in total darkness and it's not about to change soon, keeping night vision intact isn't going to change anything—what exactly are you hoping to see in total darkness without a flashlight? If you're not in total darkness, you're better off providing enough light to see everything you need to see clearly instead of straining your eyes in attempts to recognize shapes or colors. Eg. reading insufficiently lit text isn't any more healthy than reading excessive lit one. Keeping the text too close to eyes when reading is unhealthy as well; 30 cm/1 ft is an absolute minimum distance; 40 cm or more is recommended. Slipping up, spraining a leg, or having a snake bite you in the wilderness because you didn't see what you were stepping on clearly enough are all very likely cases as well.

The runtime argument is perhaps the least rational of all, because, even if you're stranded in a cave where there's no light at all regardless of daytime, your water and food supplies will run out much faster than your battery anyway. For all other usage scenarios, particularly the household one, the difference between recharging batteries once a week and once a month is absolutely insignificant and definitely not a deciding feature.

Any counterarguments? Am I missing something important?


----------



## run4jc (Jul 28, 2012)

moozooh- your points are interesting. All I know is that in a dark house in the middle of the night with my dark adjusted eyes, 1 lumen is too much. And yes, I do measure - I have an integrating sphere. 

My Spy 007 is programmable and I find a setting in slot of of around 0.1 lumen or less perfect for night time. But that's me. I'm not here to defend my position - I know what works for me, and a sub-lumen mode is very useful for me!


----------



## moozooh (Jul 28, 2012)

run4jc said:


> All I know is that in a dark house in the middle of the night with my dark adjusted eyes, 1 lumen is too much. And yes, I do measure - I have an integrating sphere.



Nice, exactly what I was hoping for. At what distance do the objects illuminated with 1 lm appear uncomfortably bright?

(I assume your light has a rather tight hotspot and your walls are white or close to it in terms of general light reflection.)


----------



## scout24 (Jul 28, 2012)

ANY light, from a floody Titan T1A, ZL H501, Photon freedom, take your pic, is way too bright at 1 lumen for me. Be it in the middle of the night to not wake my Wife, or when I get up at 4am to get ready for work. 4am-5:45am, when I leave, I rarely put on an inside house light other than in the bathroom for shave/shower. I live in a suburban neighborhood with no streetlights, so there's not much ambient light. Not so much that objects appear uncomfortably bright at 1lm, but I'm trying not to wake anyone. .1lm is fine to see objects on a dark carpet at my feet, not trip over my dog or step on my cats, set up the coffee pot, get dressed, etc. Regardless of beam type, several feet plus of visibility. I can turn off my light at that level and still have dark adapted vision, which is the whole point. If I need to wander back to my bedroom after using a full lumen, .1 won't allow me to get done what I need to, and a full lumen at that point will more than likely wake my wife. I've got a system that works for me, after much trial and tribulation. As stated by Dan, above, I know what works for me.  I've bought and sold probably hundreds of lights trying to find ones that do what I need. .1 or lower makes a nice nightlight if you need it, as well. Ceiling bounce, and it's brighter than you think. Awesome locator as well, leave the light on, and it's like brighter tritium, which is where longer runtimes can come in handy. Believe it or not, there can be satisfaction in not using more light than you NEED to accomplish the job at hand. There are many here who find, say, the lowest level on their Ra lights too bright for a given task. 

That said, I like a much brighter light during my day at work, and for dog walking early morning or at night when the seasons cooperate. The .1lm is just sometimes more than enough, and the right tool for the job. 

moozooh- search these two threads when you've got time to do some reading... "The neglected Low level" and "Brightness isn't everything" Good stuff...


----------



## run4jc (Jul 28, 2012)

moozooh said:


> Nice, exactly what I was hoping for. At what distance do the objects illuminated with 1 lm appear uncomfortably bright?
> 
> (I assume your light has a rather tight hotspot and your walls are white or close to it in terms of general light reflection.)




First, a tip of the hat to Scout24 for his excellent post....:thumbsup:

Now, moozooh - yes, the Spy 007 XPG Cool White has a tight hotspot, but with decent spill. I simply walk from the bedside to the bathroom o) then out the bedroom, down the stairs (avoiding 2 dogs and 2 cats along the way) until I reach the kitchen, at which point I'm far enough from the bedroom to not bother my sleeping wife and daughter, thus flipping on a couple of lights.

Like Scout24, I've tried dozens of lights. What some people proclaim as being "so low" might as well be flipping the lights on in the dark house.

The walls are off white, the carpet is neutral....but it is what it is. I know what works and what WILL wake my wife and what won't. Simple.


----------



## Wiggle (Jul 28, 2012)

I also wanted to add:

I like the idea of sub-lumen for efficiency as well, but it seems like below a certain drive level there is little to no efficiency to be gained. For example, you can find a light that delivers sub-lumen output but 20x higher than another for comparable runtime because so much of the losses are basic overhead and not delivered to the LED.


----------



## srfreddy (Jul 28, 2012)

It depends on the circuit type: Zebralights have a limited mode selection, but overhead is low- The H502 does 3 months on .01 lumens. The Sunwayman V10A has "infinite" modes, and a more complicated UI, usiing considerably more overhead: only 40 hours.


----------



## ServerMechanic (Jul 28, 2012)

I like low lumen "moonlight modes". I however think sub-lumen is too low. I have a Quark 123^2 Tactical that has a 0.2 lumen moonlight mode and I usually use the next level up (I think it's like 9 lumens). Even in complete darkness I usually like more than 0.2 lumens.


----------



## Patrik (Jul 28, 2012)

I appreciate and use the moonlight mode a lot, an EDC for me must have 1 lumens mode or less. So 1 Lumens are okey but I must admit that the 0,07 on my HDS are used on a regular basis. Love it.


----------



## reppans (Jul 28, 2012)

moozooh said:


> I'll play the devil's advocate here, for discussion's sake. In my opinion, the usefulness of sublumen modes as compared to, say, one lumen (which is, technically, the lowest non-sublumen brightness), is really overstated, even overhyped.



Sure you can filter, muffle, or bounce a higher lumen mode to dim it. And you can top-off, frequently charge, or carry spare batteries for more runtime. But I just find it a whole lot easier to carry a light with a moonlight mode and use it when it's enough illumination to accomplish a given task.... which actually happens to be quite a bit.

1 lumen isn't bad, you can probably get about 100 hrs from AA alkaline. I find 0.2-0.3 lumens to be the sweetspot for me though. It's worth about 300-400 hrs from a AA alkaline on a ZL or Quark XPG. With night-adjust eyes, it's just about the right amount of illumination for me to comfortably read by or do any close task work with my hands, especially with an aimed beam, like when I'm using a headband. 

No one is saying anyone will ever need to run 300-400 hrs straight on moonlight (well except for the Zombie Apocalypse), but why not save some runtime for your higher lumen modes when you can?


----------



## moozooh (Jul 29, 2012)

reppans said:


> No one is saying anyone will ever need to run 300-400 hrs straight on moonlight (well except for the Zombie Apocalypse), but why not save some runtime for your higher lumen modes when you can?


I'd like to address this rather popular misconception in particular.

Thing is, you won't really save any runtime for your higher-lumen modes that way. The difference in current required to drive an efficient LED at 0.2 vs. 1 lm for an hour is so miniscule the saved power would be burned through in the matter of seconds at 200+ lm; as most LEDs become less efficient as they're fed with higher current and as they're getting hotter, the savings become exponentially lesser. It's nowhere near "I'll save myself a whole alkaline AA that way", in any case.

There's also the fact that higher modes are the first to give out when the battery is nearing depletion due to heavier voltage boosting required.


----------



## Swedpat (Jul 29, 2012)

I consider an ultra low mode as a great feature in a multimode light. The 0,2lm of my Quark 123 is very useful with dark adapted eyes to prevent losing the night vision. 
Actually I would like a much lower mode than that. Even a 0,02lm mode would be useful at close distance with dark adapted eye if you don't want to disturb the surroundings, for example at a starparty(0,2lm mode easily reach 10meters!).


----------



## reppans (Jul 29, 2012)

moozooh said:


> I'd like to address this rather popular misconception in particular.
> 
> Thing is, you won't really save any runtime for your higher-lumen modes that way. The difference in current required to drive an efficient LED at 0.2 vs. 1 lm for an hour is so miniscule the saved power would be burned through in the matter of seconds at 200+ lm; as most LEDs become less efficient as they're fed with higher current and as they're getting hotter, the savings become exponentially lesser. It's nowhere near "I'll save myself a whole alkaline AA that way", in any case.



I completely (but respectfully) disagree.... let's use an example - go to Zebralight's website and look at the specs of the H502c (whether I truly believe the specs is a separate issue, but for illustrative purposes, it's all relative anyway). I pick this particular light since it is arguably the most efficient light you can buy, and it just happens to have a couple modes that are close our example of 0.2 vs 1 lm. 

ZL H502c, 1xAA Eneloop: 0.34 lumens ~ 20 days; 1.8 lumens ~ 4 days

So, 1.0 to 0.2 lumens ~ 5x ratio; 1.8 to 0.34 lumens ~ 5x ratio; 20 to 4 days ~ 5x ratio.

So, if we both were position where we could both use our ultra lows, and your low is 5x higher than mine..... you'd have a dead battery after a 100 hours while I'd have ~ 80% battery capacity remaining ("almost a whole Eneloop!").

To add insult to injury, you do also know that our perception of brightness is not linear, rather it is subject to square/square root law. So, although your 1 lm is 5x higher than my 0.2 lm (and you're using 5x the energy); it is only perceived as 2.25x brighter (sq rt of 5).

You can extrapolate similar info from the 4Sevens Quarks, another extremely efficient light manufacturer, but they don't have as many modes which so closely matches our particular example.

Ball's in your court.


----------



## Dude Dudeson (Jul 29, 2012)

Lowest mode I have on my EDC (or any light for that matter) is around 3 lumens. I use that mode quite a bit, but I have never encountered a situation where I thought it was too bright.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Jul 29, 2012)

I answered neutral. But if I had to sacrifice a more useful mode I'd do without the sub lumen low. If I had to sacrifice a much more commonly used mode like a 30-50 lumen low mode, I would choose to keep the 30-50L mode over the sub lumen low mode. Actually, I'd rather have a "_barely over _1 lumen mode" than a sub lumen mode. I find 1-3 lumens more useful. My Thrunite Ti's have the 3L low, and I can actually use that to walk around outdoors after dark with that much light, and its not too overbearingly bright for reading a map in a car while driving at night, or for looking for the TV remote while laying in bed with the lights off.

But all things considered, if I have the option of many modes, including a sub lumen low, then I'd want it.


**Reppans: You mentioned the zombie apocalypse as a time when running on sub lumen modes for 300 hours might be useful, well it hasnt been determined whether zombies can detect low light as well as when they were still alive, so I'd be careful if you suspect zombies are nearby, as you never know whether you will attract them or not...


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Jul 29, 2012)

reppans said:


> I completely (but respectfully) disagree.... let's use an example - go to Zebralight's website and look at the specs of the H502c (whether I truly believe the specs is a separate issue, but for illustrative purposes, it's all relative anyway). I pick this particular light since it is arguably the most efficient light you can buy, and it just happens to have a couple modes that are close our example of 0.2 vs 1 lm.
> 
> ZL H502c, 1xAA Eneloop: 0.34 lumens ~ 20 days; 1.8 lumens ~ 4 days
> 
> ...





Regardless of run times, the fact is that whether you're light is running at .2 lumens or 2-3 lumens, you are going to have LONG battery life either way. With 2- 3 lumens on a CR123 or 18650, you dont have to worry about the battery running dead any time soon, and the time it would take me to run a battery dead while on the 2-3 lumen low is such a long time that I wouldnt need to recharge for months anyway, so who cares if I have to recharge once every 4-6 months instead of once every 10 months. Its not a big hassle to remove the battery and put it in a charger for 2-3 hours twice a year!

Besides, the 3 lumen mode is FAR, FAR more useful for more ordinary tasks than the .2 lumen mode that it's not even a question of whether that extra battery charge is worth it. Try walking across a heavily wooded property like my back yard in pitch dark with .2 lumens! You will be tripping over stuff. Whereas 3 lumens is enough light to clearly see the ground below you while you walk. Plus, 3 lumens isnt too bright for most of the tasks you would use the .2 lumen setting for.

I do like a sub lumen mode every once in a while, but if I had to choose between sub lumen or slightly over 1 lumen, I'd choose slightly over 1 lumen.


----------



## srfreddy (Jul 29, 2012)

HighlanderNorth said:


> Regardless of run times, the fact is that whether you're light is running at .2 lumens or 2-3 lumens, you are going to have LONG battery life either way. With 2- 3 lumens on a CR123 or 18650, you dont have to worry about the battery running dead any time soon, and the time it would take me to run a battery dead while on the 2-3 lumen low is such a long time that I wouldnt need to recharge for months anyway, so who cares if I have to recharge once every 4-6 months instead of once every 10 months. Its not a big hassle to remove the battery and put it in a charger for 2-3 hours twice a year!
> 
> Besides, the 3 lumen mode is FAR, FAR more useful for more ordinary tasks than the .2 lumen mode that it's not even a question of whether that extra battery charge is worth it. Try walking across a heavily wooded property like my back yard in pitch dark with .2 lumens! You will be tripping over stuff. Whereas 3 lumens is enough light to clearly see the ground below you while you walk. Plus, 3 lumens isnt too bright for most of the tasks you would use the .2 lumen setting for.
> 
> I do like a sub lumen mode every once in a while, but if I had to choose between sub lumen of slightly over 1 lumen, I'd choose slightly over 1 lumen.


.2 lumens is 15 times dimmer than 3 lumens, and much less obtrusive at night indoors.


----------



## reppans (Jul 29, 2012)

HighlanderNorth said:


> Regardless of run times, the fact is that whether you're light is running at .2 lumens or 2-3 lumens, you are going to have LONG battery life either way. With 2- 3 lumens on a CR123 or 18650, you dont have to worry about the battery running dead any time soon, and the time it would take me to run a battery dead while on the 2-3 lumen low is such a long time that I wouldnt need to recharge for months anyway, so who cares if I have to recharge once every 4-6 months instead of once every 10 months. Its not a big hassle to remove the battery and put it in a charger for 2-3 hours twice a year!
> 
> Besides, the 3 lumen mode is FAR, FAR more useful for more ordinary tasks than the .2 lumen mode that it's not even a question of whether that extra battery charge is worth it. Try walking across a heavily wooded property like my back yard in pitch dark with .2 lumens! You will be tripping over stuff. Whereas 3 lumens is enough light to clearly see the ground below you while you walk. Plus, 3 lumens isnt too bright for most of the tasks you would use the .2 lumen setting for.
> 
> I do like a sub lumen mode every once in a while, but if I had to choose between sub lumen or slightly over 1 lumen, I'd choose slightly over 1 lumen.



My EDC Quark has both 0.3 and 3 lumens... they're, by far, the most often used modes I have. I love them both and know very well when and where one is more useful than the other. However, I'll also like using my 24, 115 and 280 lumen modes as well, so unfortunately, my 1x14500 doesn't last for months, as you suggest.

You sound like you might argue that a 2-mode 3/30 lm light is better a single mode 30 lm light. All we're saying is that, for exactly the same reasons, a 3-mode 0.3/3/30 lm is better than a 2-mode 3/30 lm.... I don't think any sub-lumen enthusiast here has remotely suggested that a 2-mode 0.3/30 lm is better than a 2-mode 3/30 lm.


----------



## Dude Dudeson (Jul 29, 2012)

The real kicker for me whenever this topic comes up is that I have extremely light sensitive eyes. There's been times even with sunglasses that I literally couldn't be outside and keep my eyes open. Yet I still fail to see a need for a sub lumen mode. That's not to say that I'd never use one if I had it (I might not, but I might, haven't owned anything capable of it so I don't know for sure). But I KNOW that I've never FELT any need to have a mode below my lowest existing one, which is around 3 lumens.


----------



## chanjyj (Jul 29, 2012)

5 lumens is the lowest mode I usually use. Of course, we will have to factor in lux. 5 lumens of absolute flood and 5 lumens of throw are very different creatures.


----------



## moozooh (Jul 30, 2012)

reppans said:


> So, if we both were position where we could both use our ultra lows, and your low is 5x higher than mine..... you'd have a dead battery after a 100 hours while I'd have ~ 80% battery capacity remaining ("almost a whole Eneloop!").


 Thing is, I and many other people don't mind changing a battery after 100 hours of net output at all—it's exactly what I'm talking about when I say "overstated". Whenever I use a flashlight it's about two hours a day at most, up to eight if I'm in a cave. I don't go into caves for longer than a weekend. In the worst case such an unthrifty usage would force me to change an Eneloop after a month rather than five months. But more likely than that I'll just burn through it on higher modes and change a battery in a week or even sooner. Which, mind you, would not bother me still, because seriously, a _week_ sounds like a blessing after incans and inefficient mid-2000s LEDs. I'd be more than fine if I could just spend a weekend on a single Eneloop! In real world you'll always run out of juice because of high and med modes anyway, and the low lows won't make an appreciable difference.



reppans said:


> To add insult to injury, you do also know that our perception of brightness is not linear, rather it is subject to square/square root law.


Indeed, but this logic can't be used to answer the question at hand: "is this surface sufficiently illuminated?" The more limited the light output, the more limited is the use for it.

To see how inconsequential this perceived power economy is, imagine that you're looking to stay at a hotel and somebody offers you one that is 5x cheaper than the one you're about to check into; it's perfectly habitable and all, but the ceilings there are 1.5 meters high rather than 3.5 m in the other hotel. Or you need to get a taxi to the airport that is 5x cheaper but goes at 35 km/h rather than 80. Sure, you can go for that and enjoy your economy, but in some cases you may find that you _don't want to even bother_.


----------



## reppans (Jul 30, 2012)

moozooh said:


> Indeed, but this logic can't be used to answer the question at hand: "is this surface sufficiently illuminated?" The more limited the light output, the more limited is the use for it.
> 
> To see how inconsequential this perceived power economy is, imagine that you're looking to stay at a hotel and somebody offers you one that is 5x cheaper than the one you're about to check into; it's perfectly habitable and all, but the ceilings there are 1.5 meters high rather than 3.5 m in the other hotel. Or you need to get a taxi to the airport that is 5x cheaper but goes at 35 km/h rather than 80. Sure, you can go for that and enjoy your economy, but in some cases you may find that you _don't want to even bother_.



Your hotel and taxi examples are fine..... and in both cases, yes I absolutely would take the option to save 80% if my needs were sufficiently met (ie, "the surface is sufficiently illuminated"). If it were late at night and all I wanted was a clean bed to sleep in and be out first thing in the morning, I would be more than happy to stay in a Capsule Hotel (Tokyo) where the "room" is not much larger than the bed, and the ceiling is about 1.5m. Also, a taxi cab ride from Tokyo to the Narita airport is about $250 while the bus is about $50, but takes more than twice as long with all the pick-up stops.... on my dime, I'm fine with taking the bus. Of course, I still retain the option of staying in the full size hotel room or taking a taxi too.

You guys keep arguing against moonlight modes like it's a mutually exclusive mode to 1-3 lumens - but it's not. If it were, and I had to choose between ML and 1-3 lm as my only low, I WOULD PICK 1-3 lm! - the point is that we can have our cake and eat it too. It's just an additional option, that for many purposes is not only sufficient illumination, but also desirable illumination, and that a strong majority here happen to like. 

I you really wanted to name the disadvantages of moonlight, there are really only two that I know of - 1) the selection of lights is limited to a handful of manufacturers and 2) it could represent an additional mode to have to cycle through, or "mode overload".

There is no point in debating this further since you guys are unlikely to convince any of us that 1+ lumens (as the only low mode option) is better than having 2 (or more) low mode options, and by the same token, we will be unable to convince you that it is a worthy option. If you don't like it - simply don't buy it.


----------



## Racer (Jul 30, 2012)

reppans said:


> Your hotel and taxi examples are fine..... and in both cases, yes I absolutely would take the option to save 80% if my needs were sufficiently met (ie, "the surface is sufficiently illuminated"). If it were late at night and all I wanted was a clean bed to sleep in and be out first thing in the morning, I would be more than happy to stay in a Capsule Hotel (Tokyo) where the "room" is not much larger than the bed, and the ceiling is about 1.5m. Also, a taxi cab ride from Tokyo to the Narita airport is about $250 while the bus is about $50, but takes more than twice as long with all the pick-up stops.... on my dime, I'm fine with taking the bus. Of course, I still retain the option of staying in the full size hotel room or taking a taxi too.
> 
> You guys keep arguing against moonlight modes like it's a mutually exclusive mode to 1-3 lumens - but it's not. If it were, and I had to choose between ML and 1-3 lm as my only low, I WOULD PICK 1-3 lm! - the point is that we can have our cake and eat it too. It's just an additional option, that for many purposes is not only sufficient illumination, but also desirable illumination, and that a strong majority here happen to like.
> 
> ...



Well said!


----------



## smokinbasser (Jul 30, 2012)

I like having the moonlight mode on my lights but not to save battery juice so much as not needing moth vaporization lumens around the house, I know where I am and am going so the lower levels are all I really need to get around. For unknown sounds outside I use the highest lumen setting to see whats going on.


----------



## moozooh (Jul 30, 2012)

reppans said:


> You guys keep arguing against moonlight modes like it's a mutually exclusive mode to 1-3 lumens - but it's not. If it were, and I had to choose between ML and 1-3 lm as my only low, I WOULD PICK 1-3 lm! - the point is that we can have our cake and eat it too. It's just an additional option, that for many purposes is not only sufficient illumination, but also desirable illumination, and that a strong majority here happen to like.



Actually, no, not at all. For some reason you and some others keep misinterpreting myself and probably others for whom sublumen modes are not a must-have feature. My goal here is not to tell somebody their preferred low low is bad or doesn't work for them or anything else like that. My girl likes avocado and dislikes olives; I like olives and dislike avocado. My friend buys the cheapest milk he can find in the store, which is usually low-fat and packed in a soft PET sack; I prefer whole milk in plastic or glass bottles even though it costs twice as much. It's a matter of taste.

What I'm trying to figure out and argue about is the _rational_ reasons for the preference. Personally I find the economy argument from above pretty weak because battery power is cheap, easily renewable and quickly used up on other modes. The theory looks good on paper, but I seriously doubt many people would even notice it if the low low modes in the lights they use sparingly (i.e. a few hours a day) would consume as much power as a 1 lm mode in real life.


----------



## Danielight (Jul 30, 2012)

While I wouldn't consider the sub-one lumen setting to be absolutely essential, I do like having it on a couple of my lights. My really low is the 0.04 lumen setting on a *Thrunite Ti* "firefly," which I keep on my bedstand.


----------



## Echo63 (Jul 30, 2012)

One of my edc lights needs a moonlight mode - my current one is a V10R TI
before that both my T1A and Novatac both had ultra low lows.

One thing with the lights, they need to be easily put into moonlight mode 
the T1A turns on in low, the V10R has a ring that is easily adjusted to low before turning on, and the novatac needs to be covered as it turns on, then triple clicked to go to low.


Moonlight mode is great for close up tasks, and when your eyes are adjusted to the dark (ever tried getting up to go to the toilet in the middle of the night with a bright light ?)
i frequently use moonlight mode when driving, handing it to the passenger to look at maps.
The dim light keeps me from being distracted as I am driving (especially on country roads with no streetlights)


----------



## PCC (Jul 30, 2012)

My main reason for having the handful of sub-0.2 lumen lights is that I don't disturb my family when I roll out of bed in the wee early morning hours to get ready for work. Some time ago my lowest low was the 3 lumens on my MiNi or the Preon ReVO, but, my wife told me that I was waking my daughter almost every morning when I walked past her bedroom on my way to the kitchen. That was a good enough excuse for me to buy a Quark 123T and it was programmed ML/medium. I've learned to hate preflash with that light! I've since bought a few even lower low lights since then and now I believe that the sweet spot for me is 0.04 lumens. Even with that low level I don't need an adjustment period before I can use it after turning off the bathroom or kitchen lights as I make my way out the door.

I've offered this up on another forum so I'll put it here as well: I have an essentially NIB black ThruNite Ti in the 3/60 lumens version. If anyone is on the fence about trying 0.04 lumens, PM me to see if I still have it and, if I do, I'll trade you your 0.04/60 lumens Ti if you don't like it after an honest attempt to use it in your life.


----------



## Racer (Jul 30, 2012)

I like both versions of the Ti. The moonlight version is always on my nightstand, and the 3 lumen version is clipped to my EDC bag. The 3 lumen version is probably also better for the wife too. She loves hers. And I usually EDC my T10, which has the moonlight mode but also a well spaced middle mode. Why not have your cake and eat it too!

P.S. That's a big no thanks to moonlight modes with pre-flash.


----------



## reppans (Jul 31, 2012)

+1 on the pre-flash issue. Thankfully FourSeven has fixed that problem on their latest emitters - the S2 and XML. 

Have been considering a Thrunite, but their lights seem to have that abyss between ML and the next level. My other favorite mode after ML has aways been a low single digit level. 

Got a EagleTac D25A clicky coming.... we'll how their take on ML is.


----------



## yliu (Jul 31, 2012)

Low lows can be quite useful for close range stuff at night.


----------



## pellgarlic (Sep 4, 2012)

moozooh said:


> What I'm trying to figure out and argue about is the rational reasons for the preference.



hi moozooh =) although i find that your points about the long runtime of moonlight modes hold some truth, in that it's maybe not a huge pain to recharge/replace batteries in "1 month instead of 5 months" (to take your example, dunno if that was calculated, or "illustrative"?), but much as it wouldn't be a "huge deal" if i only ate some of the food i put on my dinner plate each night and threw the rest in the bucket, in the sense that i can always buy more food, i just wouldn't do that. i don't want to "throw away" runtime if i don't need to. i'm not going to use a 8 lumen beam when a 0.2 lumen beam is sufficient because i try to be aware of the resources that i consume, and feel terrible about the thought of having wasted resources (battery power, food, electricity in my home, etc etc). the "waste" may be small, but if i can avoid it without excessive burden on myself, why not?

other strong reasons for me personally are the same as has already been stated by many others - wanting to avoid waking up other family members (girlfriend, new-born baby) when i have to be up when it's still dark, or when reading at night. super-lumen (>1) modes are just too bright for this (bouncing the beam is ineffective - there is often still enough light to disturb others sleeping, and shielding it with my hand is too awkward, as i need at least one hand free to "do stuff" =) ). therefore a sub-lumen mode is invaluable for me in this context.

i'm also an amateur astronomer, and preservation of night vision is crucial in that field - if i need some light to do something mid-viewing, i need it to be as little light as possible that will be enough to accomplish the task. too much, and my night vision is ruined for about 45 minutes, which is often long enough to end the night's viewing (especially frustrating in scotland, where clear nights are few and far between, and that could mean no more viewing for weeks... =o)



moozooh said:


> "is this surface sufficiently illuminated?" The more limited the light output, the more limited is the use for it.



from this post, it seems to me that you see using a moonlight mode it as "making do with less light than you need", and that "more light is always better" (forgive me for putting words in your mouth, and please correct me if i'm wrong about my assumptions =) ). of course, if you need more light, it would be daft to use the moonlight mode, but for me moonlight is often enough, and any more is often too much. i find super-lumen modes limited for use in the situations i have described above, so utility can't simply increase with brightness...

in other words, you seem not to agree that there can be *too much* light... perhaps it's just the circumstances that i find myself in, and you do not find yourself in circumstances that you've found you _need_ less light. i don't think that means either of us is wrong, just trying to help you in your quest to understand us sub-lumen weirdos =P


----------



## Sgt. LED (Sep 4, 2012)

When you kids get older your super sub lumen setting will be useless cause you won't be able to see them anymore lol.
Be a good excuse to buy more lights eh?


----------



## passive101 (Sep 4, 2012)

I think it's necessary in any survival type light. The best use of it is the battery can last a long time, and the light is still usable in very dark conditions. People close by can also see the light if pointed in their line of vision to locate you and know where you are. 

I have a Quark X 123a2. It's my EDC light, my camping light, hiking light, finding cat toys under the fridge light, fixing thing light, finding stuff in storage light, power outage light. It has a lot of uses and the main thing that keep me with it is that there is also a turbo mode where it is really bright on the first press (for tactical reasons). I wish it was a forward clicky. That's the only downside to it. Otherwise it's served me very well and it looks nice.


----------



## Up All Night (Sep 4, 2012)

Wiggle said:


> It's a good feature to have. I find the sub-lumen pissing matches get a little ridiculous though .".2 lumens is way too bright, I need .01 lumens max" for example.



I used to think the very same thing, but recently having a family member require being seen to through the night the difference between the .2 lumen Quark and .1 lumen Zebra SC600 is significant. I've employed my V11R for this duty as it's the lowest output light I own. How low is it? I don't know, but I could get by on less.
Had I not had this experience personally, I would have a hard time believing it!
P.S.
Reaching for the lowest output light I own has been somewhat strange!


----------



## Chicken Drumstick (Sep 5, 2012)

reppans said:


> Everybody seems to want a killer Max mode - but what about the other end of the spectrum? What does the general CPF community think about the ultra low lows - the sub-lumen "moonlight" modes?



Not sure I really understand the ultra low modes tbh. I haven't yet personally found a use for them and if I want less light I'll use a different flashlight.

I've read on here that one person claimed over 75% of their flashlight usage was moon light and many others claiming that 'most' of the time they use moonlight. If that's the case why not simply buy a Maglite Solitaire or something, nice "warm" white colour and low output. No need to buy a $100 light to not really utilise it's actual high out put ability.


----------



## yliu (Sep 5, 2012)

It's a must have for my nightstand light!


----------



## hjdca (Sep 5, 2012)

I use low, low, low, when slowly walking to my deer hunting site early in the morning when it is dark... The low, low, so you can just see the rocks infront of you is key to not spooking any game.. Also, when camping and needing to get up to relieve myself in the middle of the night, I use the low, low, to not disturb other people in the tent and to also not ruin my night vision... For me Low, low, is indispensible... This is why I like the new magnetic ring interface that gives you infinite adjustability for lumen output..


----------



## pellgarlic (Sep 5, 2012)

Chicken Drumstick said:


> I haven't yet personally found a use for them and if I want less light I'll use a different flashlight.



isn't this contradictory? or am i misunderstanding you? - are you saying that you *have* a "different flashlight" that you use when you want less light? if not, at least, you acknowledge the possiblity of a situation where less light might be desirable, thereby proving the "use for them" =). and why require a different/separate flashlight when one flashlight model is capable of providing moonlight modes as well as higher modes?

the way i see it is like the volume control on a stereo - you might want to listen to your music at "11" (name that reference in 1... =P ) most of the time, but that doesn't mean there won't be a situation where being able to turn it down to a lower volume would be useful. this analogy is especially pertinent in the "not disturbing the other people who live in the same abode" scenario.



Chicken Drumstick said:


> I've read on here that one person claimed over 75% of their flashlight usage was moon light and many others claiming that 'most' of the time they use moonlight. If that's the case why not simply buy a Maglite Solitaire or something, nice "warm" white colour and low output. No need to buy a $100 light to not really utilise it's actual high out put ability.



i'd say that most folk who appreciate a good moonlight mode would also find use for the higher modes, and wouldn't want to give them up. for me anyway, it's not about only ever using moonlight, it's about having the flexibility. i don't want to have to have a different flashlight for moonlight mode - i want my "main" light to be able to fulfil multiple roles. i do use the moonlight mode a lot, and i also use the medium modes a lot, and i only really use the highest output modes sometimes. i'm not going to put down that torch and pick up a less capable one for that reason though...

to make another comparison - i haven't personally found a use for the strobe modes on torches, but i don't really object to them being there, as they *might* come in handy one day. they might not find use in my "everyday" usage of the torch, but i can imagine ending up in a scenario where they would be useful. 

i think at the end of the day, those who have a use for the moonlight mode will want lights that have it, and those who haven't, won't. it's as simple as that. no-one on either side of the story is going to have their mind changed by anything said by someone from the other side - only personal experience can do that, and only once you've tried a torch with a moonlight mode will you know if it's useful to you or not. it's "horses for courses" - it just demonstrates the wide range of people who frequent this forum, and the wide range of tasks that we put our lights to. what suits one person won't suit another. that said, im doing my best to explain what makes a moonlight mode useful for me, so that anyone who isn't sure might be able to make an informed decision about whether they might benefit from it or not. =)


----------



## moozooh (Sep 10, 2012)

pellgarlic said:


> hi moozooh =) although i find that your points about the long runtime of moonlight modes hold some truth, in that it's maybe not a huge pain to recharge/replace batteries in "1 month instead of 5 months" (to take your example, dunno if that was calculated, or "illustrative"?), but much as it wouldn't be a "huge deal" if i only ate some of the food i put on my dinner plate each night and threw the rest in the bucket, in the sense that i can always buy more food, i just wouldn't do that. i don't want to "throw away" runtime if i don't need to. i'm not going to use a 8 lumen beam when a 0.2 lumen beam is sufficient because i try to be aware of the resources that i consume, and feel terrible about the thought of having wasted resources (battery power, food, electricity in my home, etc etc). the "waste" may be small, but if i can avoid it without excessive burden on myself, why not?


Thank you for the friendly and thoughtful response.

The 1 month instead of 5 months example is more illustrative than calculated simply because, more often than not, there are no two identical usage scenarios even with the same user, so calculations in this case should rather be called "speculations".

The waste argument... well, it's matter of drawing the line. Do you gather every last bit of rice off the plate? Do you not chop off the ends of a cucumber because they accumulate pesticides? Do you bite a watermelon right up to the green part? Do you only turn the shower on for a few seconds to wet yourself and then another few seconds to wash off the soap? I wouldn't mind any of this in circumstances where resources are actually scarce and/or expensive, but if we can afford and justify purchasing hundred- and thousand-dollar enthusiast flashlights even if already having other flashlights in the household, it is evidently not the case. Similarly, if your light's battery has been depleted to the point where it only comes on on low, would you opt for exhausting it completely or recharging despite there being some potentially useful juice left? My point is, sometimes the economy isn't worth the [potential] disadvantage; sometimes the result works against the principle—think "a miser pays twice". So this argument I still cannot accept.



pellgarlic said:


> other strong reasons for me personally are the same as has already been stated by many others - wanting to avoid waking up other family members (girlfriend, new-born baby) when i have to be up when it's still dark, or when reading at night. super-lumen (>1) modes are just too bright for this (bouncing the beam is ineffective - there is often still enough light to disturb others sleeping, and shielding it with my hand is too awkward, as i need at least one hand free to "do stuff" =) ). therefore a sub-lumen mode is invaluable for me in this context.


This is one of the two reasons I accepted as valid in the very beginning of this discussion. Perfectly fine with it.

That being said, I've recently come back from a nine-day-long trek where I was using a ZL H502d which had several sublumen modes to choose from. We found that even its 0.06 lm mode shining through a nylon mesh was uncomfortably bright when pointed straight at our faces in the night—honestly, I was surprised. So what we did was... pointing it away from our faces, and the problem solved itself fabulously.  In some other situations when the light was still on my head I would just point it upwards until the sidespill had left the sensitive areas. Takes about as much time and effort as switching modes. Apparently there's still a lot of room for options and their adjustment depending on the exact situation.

The 0.01 lm mode, curiously, was too dim for _everything_... except probably locating the light itself in complete darkness. I've yet to find a _single_ other use for it; it's almost mind-boggling. Can't imagine a situation where I'd be forced to use this mode without access to any other until the battery dies (of boredom?).



pellgarlic said:


> i'm also an amateur astronomer, and preservation of night vision is crucial in that field - if i need some light to do something mid-viewing, i need it to be as little light as possible that will be enough to accomplish the task. too much, and my night vision is ruined for about 45 minutes, which is often long enough to end the night's viewing (especially frustrating in scotland, where clear nights are few and far between, and that could mean no more viewing for weeks... =o)


Alright, this is a perfectly valid reason. I'd been looking at the sky on my trip, and although it wasn't very clear during that time (I could barely discern the Milky Way) I can relate to what you're saying.



pellgarlic said:


> from this post, it seems to me that you see using a moonlight mode it as "making do with less light than you need", and that "more light is always better" (forgive me for putting words in your mouth, and please correct me if i'm wrong about my assumptions =) ). of course, if you need more light, it would be daft to use the moonlight mode, but for me moonlight is often enough, and any more is often too much. i find super-lumen modes limited for use in the situations i have described above, so utility can't simply increase with brightness...


Well... close but not exactly right.  I definitely didn't claim that more light is always better or that there can't be too much light, but I did insist that, if you have some kind of an acceptable bracket between "too low" and "too high", it's more often better to lean towards the high side. Simply because we're daylight creatures and hence our eyes don't see well in the dark; furthermore, trying to focus on underilluminated objects—something we can and do encounter a lot every day—strains our eyes greatly and invariably leads to loss of acuity, whereas overillumination of objects is rare and, most of the time, easy to avoid.

Many of the posts by other people do seem to suggest that they either prefer making do with less light than they still comfortably could, or are unable to handle as "much" light as 1 lm (which I, for the sake of discussion and common sense, chose as the lowest non-sublumen brightness level to compare against). After all I've had experience handling lights around sleeping people and whatnot, and didn't wake up any of them even once; none of those lights had sublumen modes either. *shrug*


----------



## ZRXBILL (Sep 10, 2012)

I originally didn't think much about these sub lumen modes but now that I have a SWM V11R I like it. Heck I wish this thing would go even lower at times.


----------



## Surnia (Sep 10, 2012)

0.01 is amazing from a technical standpoint, but for me its just too low to use in all but fully night adapted situations. 0.06 lumen is surprisingly useful though, after staring at a monitor all night the 0.06 level is what I use to navigate the house and go to bed without disturbing anyone and being more than bright enough to see all that I want. 

Surprisingly, 2 lumens is monstrous and way too bright after using the computer. barely use it unless I want to start seeing colour well.

I should add that this is on the H502d, so the beam is wide spread... if the 0.01 were more focused its likely it would be more than bright enough.


----------



## Haesslich (Sep 10, 2012)

I find the best flashlight is the one I can use right when I need it (as in, I have it right now); therefore a light with a sublumen mode which also can put out 200 lumens (or even 40 lumens) that's small enough to carry 24/7 is better than the Maglite Solitaire on me plus the Search and Rescue 10000 lumen spotlight which is sitting at home and unavailable. 

Yes, I could carry a one-mode sublumen light and another big bright light at all times... which may not be possible due to size or other issues. Therefore, a light that can do low-low (and maybe save power doing it) and something brighter is more useful than multiple one-stage lights, except for redundancy. 

Granted, I DO carry multiple lights as a matter of course for redundancy, but being able to pocket one light that handles 85-90% of what I need in a day with the option of pulling out another if the need warrants beats carrying two or three lights because I NEED to (one for sublumen work, one for medium range work, one for high lumens).

Plus, you'd be surprised at how useful 0.02 can be. Especially in tight spaces and close-in work. 0.06 is a bit too bright unless you need to see a ways away, in which case 1-2 lumens is better.


----------



## low (Sep 10, 2012)

moozooh said:


> That being said, I've recently come back from a nine-day-long trek where I was using a ZL H502d which had several sublumen modes to choose from. We found that even its 0.06 lm mode shining through a nylon mesh was uncomfortably bright when pointed straight at our faces in the night—honestly, I was surprised. So what we did was... pointing it away from our faces, and the problem solved itself fabulously.  In some other situations when the light was still on my head I would just point it upwards until the sidespill had left the sensitive areas. Takes about as much time and effort as switching modes. Apparently there's still a lot of room for options and their adjustment depending on the exact situation.
> 
> The 0.01 lm mode, curiously, was too dim for _everything_... except probably locating the light itself in complete darkness. I've yet to find a _single_ other use for it; it's almost mind-boggling. Can't imagine a situation where I'd be forced to use this mode without access to any other until the battery dies (of boredom?).QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## low (Sep 10, 2012)

Double tap.


----------



## PCC (Sep 10, 2012)

Chicken Drumstick said:


> I've read on here that one person claimed over 75% of their flashlight usage was moon light and many others claiming that 'most' of the time they use moonlight. If that's the case why not simply buy a Maglite Solitaire or something, nice "warm" white colour and low output. No need to buy a $100 light to not really utilise it's actual high out put ability.


The ThruNite Ti is $16 plus shipping and offers 0.04 and 60 lumens. A simple yet reversible mod that some folks have done to their Ti's is to slip a small scrap of paper under the positive contact tab, effectively locking out high mode. I have a Ti set up this way and it's perfectly fine to use.


----------



## surgicalshot (Sep 10, 2012)

Medium and max thats all i like


----------



## leon2245 (Sep 11, 2012)

Moonlight is the new turbo, but i find little use for either extreme. Since a single mediumish mode seems to be bright enough for my needs, yet also somehow doesn't sear my retinas when I wake up, I'd just assume not have either 500l or a <.001l in there. Because once you blast high, you don't want to go down, & If there's a moonlight, that usually means there are a half dozen other modes & strobes to cycle through before getting to mine. But turbos & moonlights win out, because no manufacturer has made a light in my configuration of choice in over 5 years. But what I'd like to have seen, by cross referencing a set of public polls or something, is how many subluminites also rag on the incan solitaire for having too low an output to be useful.

BTW i am VERY opinionated about flashlights, & if you don't agree with my positions then you are merely among the *General Public *who has yet to mature enough to appreciate the subtle nuances that a TRUE FLASHAHOLIC like myself enjoys.

:laughing:


----------



## Inconceivable (Sep 11, 2012)

On my recent camping trip with my family (wife & 2 & 4 yr. old) I took my ZL H502d. At night I kept the light on sub-lumen mode all night hanging from the tent to use as a nightlight. It is nice to know that it had little effect on the battery life overall (although not the primary purpose). It gave comfort to the kids and was not to bright to sleep by but if I woke up I could find things easy. For night adapted eyes it is the cats pajamas. Oh and its use as a headlamp outside can't be underrated as well.


----------



## ArcaneLogic (Sep 11, 2012)

Me Likey. The 0.1lm on my light is used about 30% of the time around camp. I love the night and we have a ritual of sipping HC by moonlight. For prepping said HC, looking in bags for things, 2am pee trips, etc. it's perfect. Every night I read to my kids using it, so it's by far the most used mode. 

Unlike others, I don't think it's a necessary feature for an EDC light, since I (and I would think most people) use an EDC light when I actually need a decent amount of light - I'm often searching for something behind/under furniture with daylight-adjusted eyes. Rarely do I use the low mode on my EDC. 20lm is used 80% of the time, max is used 19% of the time.


----------



## DavidMB (Sep 12, 2012)

I think I use moonlight as much as any other setting. Anything higher for night adjusted eyes can be quite painful. 

I'd like know what that magical number is; just bright enough to navigate, but not too bright to hurt, or ruin night vision. This may be different for different people, but I'm curious what the average would be.


----------



## thatjeepguy (Sep 12, 2012)

I think my V11R's low is just about the lowest usable low at around one lumen. That's about as low as I can find a use for. My RRT01 goes lower, but I can't find a use for going that low.


----------



## pjandyho (Sep 12, 2012)

DavidMB said:


> I think I use moonlight as much as any other setting. Anything higher for night adjusted eyes can be quite painful.
> 
> I'd like know what that magical number is; just bright enough to navigate, but not too bright to hurt, or ruin night vision. This may be different for different people, but I'm curious what the average would be.


I find 5 to 10 lumen to be just bright enough to navigate and not too bright to hurt and ruin night vision. But then, navigate can be very subjective from person to person. Some need just enough light to see what's in front of their feet so as not to trip onto something, whereas some need a super thrower to spot tracks and roads far ahead.


----------



## Korgath (Sep 12, 2012)

Its like Steve Jobs always said that people do not know what they need until you show them what they need!
This applies to the sub lumen mode


----------



## pjandyho (Sep 12, 2012)

Korgath said:


> Its like Steve Jobs always said that people do not know what they need until you show them what they need!
> This applies to the sub lumen mode


I am a fan of Apple products but many times I felt that Mr Jobs had missed the point. Many times Apple failed to see what we needed.


----------



## smw1138 (Sep 12, 2012)

Like it a lot. I use most often as a temporary night-light for the children.


----------



## rickypanecatyl (Sep 12, 2012)

pjandyho said:


> I am a fan of Apple products but many times I felt that Mr Jobs had missed the point. Many times Apple failed to see what we needed.



Good job-you stood your ground! I think what Steve was hoping for was that we'd forget what we really wanted and or needed and be entralled by what they were doing instead.

Moonlight is used the most on my light simply because I often leave my light bezel down (with a crenulated bezel) on in moonlight mode in the middle of the night when sleeping outdoors for the sake of finding my light, and giving me some sort of orientation.


----------



## pellgarlic (Sep 12, 2012)

moozooh said:


> Thank you for the friendly and thoughtful response.


 no probs - i'm glad this whole thread has stayed amicable, despite the lack of agreement on the topic =) (and sorry i didn't reply sooner - only just got the "reply to thread" notification email, and came back to find the thread has been quite busy =P)




moozooh said:


> Do you gather every last bit of rice off the plate? Do you not chop off the ends of a cucumber because they accumulate pesticides? Do you bite a watermelon right up to the green part? Do you only turn the shower on for a few seconds to wet yourself and then another few seconds to wash off the soap?



yes. i don't like cucumbers (=P). yes. no =)



moozooh said:


> it's matter of drawing the line


 agreed, and well put - there will come a point where diminishing returns make it non-sensible to continue, and i hope that i'm sensible enough to detect that point most of the time =) i don't entirely subscribe to the "guilt-free lumens" attitude espoused by many on these forums - although i use rechargeable batteries almost exclusively, which are exponentially more environmentally friendly than disposables, i still try to be responsible with my use/recharging of them. it's entirely possible that i'm taking it too far to be sensible/beneficial, but as long as i don't feel burdened by it, i don't have a problem with it. i agree that there's room for personal interpretation of what constitutes "acceptable" waste, and accede that some waste is inevitable (until we crack nuclear fusion technology that is =P). to be honest, i admit that this was the weakest of my points anyway =)


Alluded to in your comment, and mentioned in a couple of the comments since yours, another aspect has been raised that i think is important - that of whether the shape of the beam is more throw or flood (bouncing the light providing more "flood"), and that in combination with the amount of lumens will be important. I find the "floody" 0.5 lumen beam from my eagletac d25a *roughly* comparable to the "throwy" (in comparison to the d25a) 0.2 lumen beam from my zebralight in surreptitious night-time use. i actually concluded the other night that i could do with a lower output still, as i was trying to shine the light directly in my baby's face (to see if he had been sick without disturbing him, not as a torture method =P), but it was still bright enough to make him screw his eyes up. couldn't really bounce the beam, as on moonlight, not enough light is bounced, and the higher modes start to light up the whole room. i was thinking though, that a diffuser might offer the same benefit that a lower output would, or possibly even be a better solution... gonna try that tonight with a DIY "white 35mm film container" diffuser and see how i get on.



moozooh said:


> We found that even its 0.06 lm mode shining through a nylon mesh was uncomfortably bright when pointed straight at our faces in the night—honestly, I was surprised. So what we did was... pointing it away from our faces, and the problem solved itself fabulously.



awesome - i'm the first to endorse simple and elegant solutions to problems, and that is certainly one for that particular situation, and will work in many others too. but of course it isn't a solution for the examples i gave in my last post - being outside for astronomy, i have nothing to bounce the beam off, and if i'm with others i certainly don't want to be pointing the torch anywhere except in the direction i actually need the light to be. and when checking on my baby at night, a quite brightly illuminated ceiling (large area) is almost as disturbing to him as a light directly in his face... (i know that when my girlfriend does a ceiling bounce with my sc51, it's disturbing enough for me that i have to put a pillow over my face =( ). for these scenarios, a lower output is the only recourse.





leon2245 said:


> what I'd like to have seen, by cross referencing a set of public polls or something, is how many subluminites also rag on the incan solitaire for having too low an output to be useful.



yes, i would disdain any light having only a "moonlight" mode (or an incan with a comparable brightness level), much as i would equally disdain any light having only a "turbo" mode, or any light having only a "medium" mode, but not because it's useless, but because the single mode of output limits its use. i have use for moonlight mode, but also medium and high. the use of the torch as a whole is different from the use of each of its individual modes - if a torch has only one mode, it's not useless, just less useful =P there is no reason whatsoever in this age of electronics that there should be any barrier to making a light multi-mode (except possibly for economics - a single-mode light will inevitable be cheaper, but multi-mode lights are hardly extortionate...).



at the end of the day, someone saying "i don't find a use for it" won't change the fact that i _do_ find a use for it =) and equally, me saying "i find a use for it" won't change the fact that some others _don't_ find a use for it. i like discussing it, but that doesn't mean i expect to change anyone's opinion, or try to force them to admit to having a use for a moonlight mode when they really don't have one. men don't find a use for tampons (well, unless you're talking about using it as emergency tinder =P), but that doesn't mean they have no use - it's all about context and perspective. if i take anything from this thread/poll, it's not whether or not i (or anyone else) am (/is) right or wrong about liking and wanting and using a moonlight mode, but simply that people are different and have different needs, and that there semes to be a fairly even mix of views on it =) i do hope though that manufacturers continue to include moonlight modes, but i don't expect them to appear on every torch.


----------



## wjv (Sep 12, 2012)

Give me a ~8-12 lumen light that can run for 10 hours on one good AAA battery, with a total length of ~60-70mm and I'll be happy.

Something like the Sunwayman R01A without the purple tinted light!


----------



## leon2245 (Sep 13, 2012)

pellgarlic said:


> leon2245 said:
> 
> 
> > what I'd like to have seen, by cross referencing a set of public polls or something, is how many subluminites also rag on the incan solitaire for having too low an output to be useful.
> ...





Congrats! You passed the hypocrite test with a B+!!! (Just consider yourself lucky I kept reading after "yes".)


----------



## leon2245 (Sep 13, 2012)

wjv said:


> Give me a ~8-12 lumen light that can run for 10 hours on one good AAA battery, with a total length of ~60-70mm and I'll be happy.
> 
> Something like the Sunwayman R01A without the purple tinted light!



Just keep in mind a light like that couldn't simultaneously be all things to all people. So while we are both free to like what we like & are unlikely to ever change each others' mind (and it was extremely necessary for me to point that out), just understand that I disdain the happiness you find with a light that has such limited usefulness to me. 

I DISDAIN IT!


----------



## moozooh (Sep 13, 2012)

pellgarlic said:


> i was thinking though, that a diffuser might offer the same benefit that a lower output would, or possibly even be a better solution... gonna try that tonight with a DIY "white 35mm film container" diffuser and see how i get on.


Indeed, that might be the case. I've been thinking about the 0.06 lm being too bright as per my previous post and realized that it wasn't exactly that rather than the light source being concentrated to a single bright spot. Diffusing it would've made it less annoying even if it were brighter.



pellgarlic said:


> men don't find a use for tampons


Excellent nosebleed remedy, btw. 



leon2245 said:


> I DISDAIN IT!


:laughing:


----------



## pellgarlic (Sep 13, 2012)

leon2245 said:


> Just keep in mind a light like that couldn't simultaneously be all things to all people. So while we are both free to like what we like & are unlikely to ever change each others' mind (and it was extremely necessary for me to point that out), just understand that I disdain the happiness you find with a light that has such limited usefulness to me.
> 
> I DISDAIN IT!



lol! (i'm saying no more...  ...except maybe just to point out that the last paragraph of my previous post wasn't intended to be directed at anyone in particular, it was just general musing =) and accede that i should stop pointing out the bleeding obvious =P)


----------



## leon2245 (Sep 13, 2012)

(Disdain: withdrawn.)


----------



## Badbeams3 (Sep 13, 2012)

I have two lights with a low low (soon to be 3). In reality they are used most on those settings...pointed up at the ceiling as nights light at hotels and such. I set one in the bathroom and one in the main room so folks can find their way around at night. Not exciting. No one say`s "WOW...thats a dim light!" But I find it very nice to have....


----------



## moozooh (Sep 13, 2012)

Probably because lights being dim isn't traditionally considered an accomplishment in interior lighting.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Sep 13, 2012)

moozooh said:


> Probably because lights being dim isn't traditionally considered an accomplishment in interior lighting.



LOL...for sure.


----------



## hnupek (Sep 23, 2012)

I had my first outdoor experience with moonlight yesterday - my Quark QP2A Gen 2 arrived on Friday, so I took it on a hike yesterday. It was my first flashlight with moonlight (Quark has 0.2 lum). I have to say, I didn't think this would be much use to me, I wanted to use 4 lumen+, It was just a little emergency extra for me since it has long runtime..

OH, HOW WRONG I WAS!!! The sub-lumen is FANTASTIC! I was really surprised - 0.2 lumen is absolutely sufficient output, it's fantastic for map reading, locating the stuff and also, probably for hiking in complete darkness while maintaing the night vision (can't say since it was not complete darkness yet). Absolute must for night indoor use. I have to say I LOVE IT!

Not sure about less, probably it would not be sufficient for me, but I think, after my experience, 0.2 lumen is was to go. Definitely recommended


----------



## Erik1213 (Sep 23, 2012)

There are two lights I own that don't have moonlight mode. The 4Sevens Preon2 High CRI edition and a XENO E03. Those two lights don't get used much at all.

I leave moon mode on one of my lights on all night, just in case the power goes out so I can find it. It's not bright enough to disturb me but it is bright enough to light up a spot on the ceiling and find the light.

Since I moved, I don't experience as many power outages as I used to but I still do it out of habit.


----------



## licht55 (Sep 23, 2012)

I like it on my Jetbeam RRT-0, which unfortunately is quite bulky and hurts night vision by bright flashing when going below ca. 60 % NiMH battery capacity. But outdoors with dark-adapted eyes the "low" mode of the iTP EOS A3 can be too bright.


----------



## bluemax_1 (Sep 24, 2012)

My EDC for years was a Fenix L2D Rebel head on L1D body. I think the lowest mode was ~9 lumens. All these new lights with sub lumen moonlight modes had me wondering if there really was any use for these modes aside from giving manufacturers the chance to claim "720 hour maximum runtime!"

I wondered if it was even enough light to see by, until I got my first few lights with sub lumen modes (SC80 with 0.12 lumens and Quark QPA with 0.2 lumens). I now find these modes used quite often when my eyes are dark adapted.

I realized that with the old Fenix, I would just about completely cover the front of the light with my fingers in low mode when my eyes were fully dark adapted, allowing only a sliver of light through between my fingers. Moonlight mode is far more convenient. 0.12 lumens is certainly enough to make my way around the house at night, and it's great for use around the camp or in the tent or digging in my pack without ruining my night vision.

Now that I've finally tried it, I won't be going back to no moonlight mode lights for an EDC or pocket sized light. Don't really need moonlight mode on something like my TK41 as I'll have the QPA or SC80 in my pocket with me anytime I'm using the TK41.

Sure I can use a 2-4 lumen mode and cover the front with my fingers like I used to do with my Fenix, but why bother? The QPA on a 14500 has replaced my trusty old Fenix as my new EDC. Way more light on Turbo when I need it, way longer runtimes on Moonlight when I don't need Turbo, and I don't have to cover the light. I can stick it in my mouth and have both hands free if I need to and still not harm my dark adaptation too much (oh, and I like the frequency of the tactical strobe better. It's slightly faster and more disorienting than the old Fenix (great for settling down belligerent drunks. They'll ***** and moan but usually get less physical after blasting them with that).


Max


----------



## TEEJ (Sep 24, 2012)

I have a tritium fob that provides a ~ 20 year run time with no cells or charging, etc....and sub lumen illumination.

Its glow is almost imperceptible in a normally lit room or outdoors, but if your eyes are night adapted, it can light up an entire room with a soft glow.

Its useful for navigation at the "Don't bump into furniture" level, but I would be hesitant to recommend sub lumen lighting levels for hiking at night w/o stepping on a snake, etc. About the same opinion of my SC600's 0.1 lumen mode as far as usefulness.

Frankly, outside, there is REAL moonlight...so, a moonlight level light would be redundant most of the time if that's all the light I needed.

So, I have lights with moonlight/Sub-L modes, and lights with low L modes, say 2-10 lumens...and I use the low lumen modes more than the sub lumen modes, but, generally, I use the lights I have on max more than any other setting. If I need less light, I just use a dimmer light to start with generally, instead of taking out a stronger light and throttling it down, etc.


The other factor is LUX. We can't SEE lumens...we see Lux. If I have a more focused light, the same number lumens will make a smaller patch of light, whereas a floodier beam will spread those lumens out into a broader patch of light.

That means that, as far as nightime resolution goes, if I am able to see twice as much as a time, I'd need twice the lumens to have the same effective lighting/ability to make out details. 

I've also found that, especially for night adapted eyes...the more focused the beam, the brighter the hot spot appears to be, and the more it stops down the eyes...and the less OUTSIDE the hot spot you can see.

A more dispersed light pattern, preferably with no visible hot spot, preserves night vision better, as the eyes have no "limiting factor" bright area to close down in response to. 

The other preference for a floodier beam in this regard is because the part of your eye that you focus on details with is a central ~ 2º cone of vision (Fovea) that has TERRIBLE night vision. So, a small patch of dim light would require you to look to the SIDE of that patch to see details of what's IN the patch of light, etc. So, its forcing you to use your worst detail vision to see details, and/or forcing you to use your worst night vision to see in dim light, etc.

That means navigation via peripheral vision when the lux levels are too low for your fovea to have the resolution it needs to make out details. This is WHY sub-lumen lighting is ok to not bump into furniture level uses, and that's about it. 

There are charts recommending appropriate lux levels for various tasks to avoid eye strain. Not too many tasks are listed where a sub lumen light source would have provided the recommended task lighting. IE: Sub lumen lights have a very limited application. They are great for the applications where they have a niche, such as those listed above...but that's about it.


----------



## pellgarlic (Sep 24, 2012)

TEEJ said:


> Frankly, outside, there is REAL moonlight...so, a moonlight level light would be redundant most of the time if that's all the light I needed.



what about the nights when it's a new moon, or just a crescent? (a quarter moon is only about 1/10th as bright as a full moon, and spends less time above the horizon during the sun-less hours than a full moon does), or it's behind clouds or mountains or trees? =) 

i love it when i can navigate by the light of the full moon, but i would say the times when "real" moonlight is sufficient for navigation are the exception, and most of the time it's not sufficient. so, rather than rely on the capricious nature of... well, "nature", i'll continue to carry my pocket moon with me to make sure i can always have a moonlit night when i need one =). 




TEEJ said:


> generally, I use the lights I have on max more than any other setting. If I need less light, I just use a dimmer light to start with generally, instead of taking out a stronger light and throttling it down, etc.



surely lights which are "dimmer" (presumably you mean ones which are not capable of both "bright" and "moonlight" modes, but are only capable of being "dim"?) are _less_ useful than one which has multiple modes? why carry a torch that is _only_ dim or _only_ bright, meaning you need to have more than one? instead, why not carry one torch that can do it all? 

i know this goes against an oft quoted ethos of these forums - "buy them all!" =P but really, despite being slightly obsessed by torches, and finding them all fascinating, i honestly don't want a "collection" of lights - i want maybe three torches max that will each fill as many different roles as possible. this also ties in with another of the epithets often espoused on these forums - "the best torch is the one you have with you". well, i want the one i have with me to be able to fill as many roles as possible =). in an emergency, i might not be able to decide "that lower powered torch i have in a drawer in the spare room will better suit this application, i'll just go get it". more likely, it'll be "whatever i have on me is going to have to do the job. i hope it can...".


----------



## TEEJ (Sep 24, 2012)

pellgarlic said:


> what about the nights when it's a new moon, or just a crescent? (a quarter moon is only about 1/10th as bright as a full moon, and spends less time above the horizon during the sun-less hours than a full moon does), or it's behind clouds or mountains or trees? =)
> 
> i love it when i can navigate by the light of the full moon, but i would say the times when "real" moonlight is sufficient for navigation are the exception, and most of the time it's not sufficient. so, rather than rely on the capricious nature of... well, "nature", i'll continue to carry my pocket moon with me to make sure i can always have a moonlit night when i need one =).
> 
> ...




LOL - Well, the 0.25 lumen is the AVERAGE for a moonlit night....so its brighter than that half the time, and dimmer half the time, etc.



So 1 lumen for a full moon is ~ 100 times brighter than some people say they need their flashlight to be able to do w/o blinding them.



As for your philosophy about one light doing it all - No problem with the objective at ALL. The only problems can be what "ALL" means for YOU. For some people, a candle will do it....that's all they ever need, and more's a waste.

For other people, their lighting requirements can be quite varied, and you end up with the moral equivalent of a Leatherman...an extremely versatile tool that does a lot of jobs almost adequately. IE: Adequately enough to work for you enough of the time to make it not worth carrying around real tools.



So, sure....MOST of the people here (This thread) seem to be OK barely seeing things in the dark...or at least not seeing them as well as they could see them if it were daylight. Most people see best in daylight, and anything less is a compromise. While you are fine with the MOON in your pocket...as are MANY of us....NO ONE here has the SUN in their pocket.

Maybe a slice of the sun...the ability to put a patch here or there, but, only a patch. Generally, I think we all decide, for ourselves, HOW MUCH of a patch is worth carrying around.


----------



## pellgarlic (Sep 25, 2012)

TEEJ said:


> LOL - Well, the 0.25 lumen is the AVERAGE for a moonlit night....so its brighter than that half the time, and dimmer half the time, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> So 1 lumen for a full moon is ~ 100 times brighter than some people say they need their flashlight to be able to do w/o blinding them.



=) may i ask where you got those numbers? (not that i doubt them, it's just something i'm really interested in - i know that a full moon can actually be too bright in some circumstances - astronomy in particular, where it can ruin night vision to the point that you can't see nebulae. the brighter the moon, the worse the viewing basically).


----------



## bluemax_1 (Sep 25, 2012)

pellgarlic said:


> =) may i ask where you got those numbers? (not that i doubt them, it's just something i'm really interested in - i know that a full moon can actually be too bright in some circumstances - astronomy in particular, where it can ruin night vision to the point that you can't see nebulae. the brighter the moon, the worse the viewing basically).


I think he meant that 1 lumen = 100x the 0.01 lumen some folks mention.

The argument doesn't hold water though.

Daylight is many, many more times the brightness of a sub lumen mode and we can walk around it just fine because our eyes have adjusted to it and just about EVERYTHING is lit up well. Use a light that can produce a hotspot with the lux of noonday sun in cloudless conditions, but with zero spill and you won't be able to see anything outside the hotspot because your dark adaptation is gone. THAT'S the issue at hand.

On a bright moonlit night, sure we can get around fairly well, because the moonlight, like the sunlight, is falling on everything. On a dark night though it is the contrast between dark and bright that affects dark adaptation. The brighter light kills dark adaptation, making anything outside the light appear even darker.

The sub lumen modes in the 0.1 - 0.2 lumen range (I don't have any 0.01 lights that I know of) are more than adequate for me to get around the house or around my tent at night. On a dark, moonless night with full dark adaptation, I can even get around outdoors with it.

If there's ambient light interfering with full adaptation though, I prefer at least 3 lumens. For potentially hazardous terrain, at least 20 lumens (whether the hazards are prairie dog holes or snakes in the outdoors, or dog poop in the yard). For potentially life and limb threatening terrain and or faster paced night hiking in unfamiliar territory, I prefer at least 50-60 lumens. For night time trail running, I prefer at least 80+ lumens to be able to see clearly far enough ahead for my rate of travel.

For mountain biking at night, I'd prefer 200-300 lumens to account for the increased speed.

Horses for courses. I prefer a light with options. Yes, I have more than one light. I use my QPA on 14500 as my EDC because it fits the most bills in a size compact enough that I never think twice about tossing it in my pocket. It is the light that I will have with me when I need it but didn't plan for it. If I need a thrower, I bring the TK41.

If I could get 1 light that would put out 2000+ lumens on Max for 8 hours and throw 2 miles or hit a button for a floody beam, have a Moonlight mode of ~0.15 lumens that can run for a year straight, have infinite variability between the Min and Max with no runtime penalties and was the size of a Photon keychain light, I'd be all over it, and so would everyone else (oh, and while I'm wishing, I'd like it to cost $1.95. In all honesty though, I'd drop $1000 easy on a light like that). 

Maybe some time in the future, but for now, I'll go with the lights that have as many of the modes/options I use, which includes a sub-lumen mode, a Max mode of at least 200 lumens, decently spaced brightnesses between the extremes, and all in a 1xAA size light that can run on ordinary, easily available anywhere AA batteries if I need it to (albeit with greatly reduced Max output).

Right now the 14500 QPA fits the bill. Maybe some time within my lifetime, my fantasy light above will be a reality. Heck, I wonder how long it will be before they find a way to do that with a 1xAA light, considering how far things have come in just the past decade.


Max


----------



## Marten (Sep 25, 2012)

I believe that a lot of us started off with the "The higher the output the better" attitude towards flashlight purchases. I know that I most certainly fell into this category. But then you come to realize that "paint melting" lumens (Or massive lux measurements for that matter) are very rarely practical for everyday or normal use. I'm not saying that there isn't a place for various output levels but rather that everyday use generally calls for the "lower" lumen levels. However, just as 100-200 + outputs aren't always used in real life, neither are the moonlight/sub lumen levels used that frequently either I suppose. But I daresay, in my opinion of course, that there is generally more of a practical application for the so called moonlight modes in day to day use. And yes, one of my requirements for a general purpose flashlight, is that it must have this functionality. Even in the so called "tactical" lights. For instance the Maelstrom G5 - I believe it to be a great unit, having a rather high max output, but also the moonlight setting. My only complaint is that it cannot tail-stand which would have made this, for my application, very near ideal. Anyway, just my thoughts.


----------



## licht55 (Sep 25, 2012)

TEEJ said:


> I've also found that, especially for night adapted eyes...the more focused the beam, the brighter the hot spot appears to be, and the more it stops down the eyes...and the less OUTSIDE the hot spot you can see.
> 
> A more dispersed light pattern, preferably with no visible hot spot, preserves night vision better, as the eyes have no "limiting factor" bright area to close down in response to.



Good point! I once almost ran into somebody at night. My headlight was pointing down to illuminate the way in front of me and also not to blind other people. The illuminated area was well visible, but outside of it I hardly saw anything because my eyes were accommodated to the illuminated spot. 

I am still looking for good ways to get better peripheral vision in such situations. Red light helps to keep dark adaptation, but does not provide a 'natural' (white/full colour) impression - and looks a bit strange. 
I would like to experiment with beam shapes, probably something with a wide bright area (preferably at least 9 degrees) and around that a spill that gives some illumination but does not blind others. Maybe something like low beam of cars. Any recommendations would be welcome!


----------



## Darvis (Sep 26, 2012)

Certified sub lumen mode junkie here, and like anything else (and as others have said) this setting has its place in my collection, but it's not all I use. I will say that I tend to be a one mode dedicated light user, so many of my sub lumen lights tend to be Peaks or ones that I've built myself for a dedicated purpose, but also can't deny that I think the Zebralights are just fantastic, particularly the the SC60 cool tint (my all time favorite Zeb).


----------



## reppans (Sep 26, 2012)

Darvis said:


> Certified sub lumen mode junkie here, and like anything else (and as others have said) this setting has its place in my collection, but it's not all I use. I will say that I tend to be a one mode dedicated light user, so many of my sub lumen lights tend to be Peaks or ones that I've built myself for a dedicated purpose, but also can't deny that I think the Zebralights are just fantastic, particularly the the SC60 cool tint (my all time favorite Zeb).



Ahhhh THE Darvis of runtime testimonial fame!

Have you tested ZL's sub-lumen runtimes? Are they true to spec and are there any testimonial threads like the FourSeven's one? After ZL, what are the next best lights for efficient sub-lumen multimode/variable lights?

Thanks.


----------



## Cataract (Sep 26, 2012)

I love the sub-lumen modes for late night little things where I prefer not to be seen by the neighbours (no, nothing illegal.)

At home I also use 100 to 300 modes for precision work (or just cutting my toe nails.) I keep the 20-50 and 500+ lumen modes for camping.


----------



## Bolster (Sep 27, 2012)

*Must have* sub-lumen modes for middle-of-night check on sleeping children.


----------



## TEEJ (Sep 27, 2012)

I feel compelled to point out that the amount of light falling on the sleeping child's face can be too much with 0.5 lumens, or too little to see if their eyes are open with 5 lumens, depending upon how floody the beam is. IE: The floodier the beam, the less LUX on the kids eye lids for the same total LUMEN light.


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2012)

TEEJ said:


> I feel compelled to point out that the amount of light falling on the sleeping child's face can be too much with 0.5 lumens, or too little to see if their eyes are open with 5 lumens, depending upon how floody the beam is. IE: The floodier the beam, the less LUX on the kids eye lids for the same total LUMEN light.




Ahh, but see there is a build up of light, 5 lumens of light is still 5 lumens of light. Just because it is not in there face dont mean much. It will still be there to use. Take zebralights H502c for example, on the high end of low (1.8 lumens) pure 120 degree flood. That in itself will light up a very large area, in my case 480 sq ft, more than enough to see everything in that room. So that measly little 0.34 moonlight mode will be all you need to light up the childs room with out shining it in your childs face. So no matter how floody you get it is still useable. Unless of course you take it outside where there is no bounce effect.


----------



## wjv (Sep 27, 2012)

I have a Sunwayman R01A (10 lumen) and I use it all the time. Great for going around the house and walking the dog. It is my EDC along with my TerraLUX LightStar 80 (Yes I carry both). I use the Sunwayman 5x more than the TerraLUX. I love the LONG run time that the R01A provides.

Ia also have a iTP C8 that I keep locked in a 6 lumen mode. Much nicer light than the Sunwayman. Even on 6 lumen it's focused and bright white. The iTP actually looks brighter than the Sunwayman because of teh focused white beam, vs the floody bluish beam.

I also have two ThruNite Ti (3L model) on order. Be interesting to see how they work. . . If ThruNite EVER sends them to me. . .  It's been a couple weeks now. .


----------



## wjv (Sep 27, 2012)

reppans said:


> You guys keep arguing against moonlight modes like it's a mutually exclusive mode to 1-3 lumens - but it's not.



One problem though, and it is just personal preference. . I HATE lights with 27 different modes. My iTP has infinite brightness settings, but a VERY simple UI with memory.

My other lights like the JetBeam have 2 or 3 modes tops, and are simple to operate. Some lights I've seen require a Masters degree in engineering to understand. . Oh wait, I do have a MS in engineering and I still hate the complex UIs. . So adding a simple 1 or 2 extra levels might not seem like much, but if they add to the complexity of the UI, then that can be a real PITA. . 

One thing I don't understand are the lights that have a Med -> Low -> High sequence without a last mode memory. What the heck were they thinking?

I mentioned earlier that I have two 3 lumen TIs on order. When they arrive I'm going to do the 3L mod to one of them to lock out the 60L mode, and use that one by the bedside at night for a while, and see how it works out.

I use my low lumen lighting 20x more than the high lumen lights. My JetBeam is locked on 30 lumen and iTP on 6. I never use anything more than the 25L on the Coleman XL50. The 10 lumen Sunwayman is quite sufficient for walking the dog, and for indoors I have yet to find any real purpose for any thing brighter except in rare circumstances like crawling under the sink to remove the locking nuts on a faucet. . .


----------



## wjv (Sep 27, 2012)

Bolster said:


> *Must have* sub-lumen modes for middle-of-night check on sleeping children.



I've done bed checks using my TerraLUX Lightstar 80 without any problem. I simply don't shine the light directly in their face. Just aim it at the floor.


----------



## PCC (Sep 30, 2012)

PCC said:


> I've offered this here: I have an essentially NIB black ThruNite Ti in the 3/60 lumens version. If anyone is on the fence about trying 0.04 lumens, PM me to see if I still have it and, if I do, I'll trade you your 0.04/60 lumens Ti if you don't like it after an honest attempt to use it in your life.


I made this offer two months ago and no takers. No one has even PM'd about it.


----------



## PCC (Sep 30, 2012)

wjv said:


> I've done bed checks using my TerraLUX Lightstar 80 without any problem. I simply don't shine the light directly in their face. Just aim it at the floor.


My first sub-lumen light was purchased because my wife was complaining to me that I was waking up my daughter as I was walking past her bedroom with the 3 lumens from my Quark MiNi 123 every morning. I always pointed it at the floor and still do so with the ThruNite T10 that I use now. That light puts out 0.09 lumens and is more than bright enough to maneuver through the house with even if I floor/ceiling bounce it.


----------



## moozooh (Oct 1, 2012)

PCC said:


> I was waking up my daughter as I was walking past her bedroom with the 3 lumens from my Quark MiNi 123 every morning. I always pointed it at the floor


Honestly, things like this just boggle my mind. o_0

Almost as if your daughter was sleeping there on the floor directly in your way. And why was her door open?.. _(shrug)_ It appears to me that what was waking her up was the sound of your footsteps, because I just don't understand how a floor bounce of a 3 lm beam from several meters away could penetrate closed eyelids during sleep.


----------



## PCC (Oct 1, 2012)

I don't know. I was told that it was enough to do so and she was young enough to want to sleep with the door open. I know it's not a noise issue as her bedroom is next to the kitchen and the noise from the coffee maker doesn't seem to bother her. Maybe the noise brings her to a shallower sleep and the light is enough to wake her from that? It's a moot point now as she now sleeps with the door closed, but, I've learned that I don't need as many lumens as I've used in the past so I'll continue to do so.


----------



## wjv (Oct 1, 2012)

My daughters are just the opposite.

My wife has even used the vacuum cleaner in their rooms without waking them up.

We assume it was because orphanages is China are not quiet places, so they got use to sleeping in noisy environments.


----------



## markr6 (Mar 1, 2013)

Come on back to life old thread!!

I feel the need to express how important moonlight modes are! I always thought they were a useless feature until I recently started using them more and more.

Over the last few weeks, I've been waking up before my wife to take our new puppy outside. I no longer use any cool whites, but I kept my H51 figuring I would use it for miscellaneous tasks without the headband; I'm glad I kept it. It's AMAZING how bright even 2.5 lumens are after sleeping all night and suddenly waking up at 6:28AM. Sometimes I even bump it down to the 0.2 lumen mode and wonder if it's in the lowest mode.

It's totally worth having a moonlight mode especially in a small EDC.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Mar 1, 2013)

I just recently discovered the low, low, low mode on my SC52. I thought I had already found that lowest mode but the truth is, it was SO low, that I didnt even realize I had seen it yet! Then I re-read the manual, and discovered there is actually an extra low mode. So I 6-double clicked to get to the low mode options, and viola! There it was in all its not very bright at all glory! Its really low. When I was programming the light before, I assumed it was the off mode, because it is so low it just didnt put out enough light for me to see it against my hand in the semi dim light. But now I've got it programmed in as the 2nd low mode, so hopefully I'll get to try it in a movie theater or somewhere that you dont want to bother people around you while you read something.


----------



## TEEJ (Mar 1, 2013)

I still don't really need it....I have tritium fobs if I want that soft a light effect...or I can turn the light on in my pocket, etc.

I did play with the lights with sub-lumen modes, but, anything less than 3-5 L for a floody light is not that useful to me.

Average moonlight is ~ 0.25 L. When my eyes are night adapted, in a house with alarm clocks, DVD's, and so forth, there is enough ambient light to see w/o a flashlight. I have good night vision...so maybe its easier for me. My wife is about night blind...so its harder for her. I gave her some sub-lumen lights when on vacation to get around at night with...and she felt they were useless, and "wanted a real flashlight".

If I'm not night adapted, sub-lumen is invisible, and I want more light anyway.

So, if I don't actually need a light, a sub-lumen light is ok....if I actually need a light, I'll just use a light.



I will mention again about tritium fobs being a very good alternative for sub-lumen lighting...the glow is very soft, but when night adapted, you can see by the glow just fine.

In a pitch black cabin, no other lights (Or electricity)...I hung a trit in the bathroom to make a "runway" for my wife to get to the bathroom and back, worked fine.


----------



## morelightnow (Mar 1, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> I will mention again about tritium fobs being a very good alternative for sub-lumen lighting...the glow is very soft, but when night adapted, you can see by the glow just fine.
> 
> In a pitch black cabin, no other lights (Or electricity)...I hung a trit in the bathroom to make a "runway" for my wife to get to the bathroom and back, worked fine.




This is exactly why I passed up buying a bezel with tritium slots in it for my HDS clicky. I did not want too much glow from the front making the moonlight mode obsolete. Moonlight is the first level to come on and I use it several times a night. In the middle of the night, it is still too bright for my wife and myself. My next step is to get a diffuser and see how that works.

Buying a cheap dim light is the perfect solution for most people but I am a high cri tint snob so I pay the premium for it.


----------



## david57strat (Mar 1, 2013)

I'm happy enough with the super low output of my Sunwayman V11-R (with the advertised low low of 1 lumen) on those rare occasions when such low light is desired, or even actually useful; but I live in the city, and I very rarely find it very useful to have such low output out of a light; so the higher output light gets the nod, more often, than not.

Maybe if a I were a camper, in the military, or in some other situation where I needed to have fully night-adapted vision and use super low levels of light out of my flashlight...? As far as trips to the bathroom, there are night lights in the bathrooms, and plenty enough light comes into my room, even with the curtains closed, if I leave the blinds open; so sub-lumen output is not very practical for me.


----------



## PCC (Mar 1, 2013)

I​ noticed that the moonlight mode of my L3 Illumination L10 219 four mode is way lower than the 0.04 lumen low of the ThruNite Ti. I'm guessing it's 0.01 or less. It's actually so low that its borderline unusable.


----------



## Esko (Mar 2, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> I still don't really need it....I have tritium fobs if I want that soft a light effect...or I can turn the light on in my pocket, etc.
> 
> I did play with the lights with sub-lumen modes, but, anything less than 3-5 L for a floody light is not that useful to me.
> 
> ...



The moonlight (*full* moon) is 0,25 lm *per square meter*. In other words, if you have a 2 m^2 window and a 20 m^2 room, the average illumination level can be something like 0,025 lumens per m^2. If it is full moon and it is shining straight to your room. If not, it is less.

I find it strange that your wife was happy with a tritium fob but not with a sub-lumen flashlight. I also have my biggest tritium fob (15 cm tube) in my bathroom. When it was in a all-white bathroom, it provided a nice nighttime illumination. However, that was another apartment and the current one has a bathroom with a partly white and partly green interior. The tritium fob just isn't enough any more. On the other hand, all my sub-lumen flashlights (from 0,04 to 0,5 lumens) provide plenty of light there.

I also must say that I don't find the monochromatic green glow particularly soft or pleasant. If it is green you are talking about. I believe that yellow trits would be better, but I don't have enough of them to do a visual test. In a photographic test, the yellow was a clear winner though.

For me it has been a quite different story with trits. I was interested in them for illumination purposes. They just turned out to be quite dim and for a pleasant ambient illumination, I would need a punch of big fobs. Why would I spend big bucks in them when I can have the same more conveniently in one sub-lumen flashlight (or even better, headlamp)?


----------



## bluemax_1 (Mar 2, 2013)

Tritium fobs might get a little expensive (and real Tritium anything will cease to glow after X number of years as the radioactive material wears out).

This, on the other hand
http://glowinc.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=11

I bought 2 X 0.5 fl oz. bottles to mark stuff with years ago. If you use several coats to lay it on thick, the GITD is comparable to the Super Luminova on my Omega Seamaster Professional dive watches. They charge up in the same amount of time, and keep glowing just as long (about 24 hours till it gets too dim to see it in a dark room, off one bright charge).

I used one bottle to paint some things but the other bottle is still unopened. If I charge that bottle with a bright light (eg. QPA-G2 on 14500 Turbo) for 15-20 seconds, the bottle of glow paint will glow as bright as a glow stick for about 3-5 minutes, it begins dimming the moment a light source is removed, but it will keep glowing all night long. I use that bottle of glow paint as a nightlight. 

They claim to sell the brightest GITD paint available and from what I've seen, I wouldn't dispute it. As I've mentioned, I bought some years ago and it still works great. They claim their V10 paint (brightest GITD paint) only loses about 5% of its glow after 10 years).


Max


----------



## TEEJ (Mar 2, 2013)

Esko said:


> The moonlight (*full* moon) is 0,25 lm *per square meter*. In other words, if you have a 2 m^2 window and a 20 m^2 room, the average illumination level can be something like 0,025 lumens per m^2. If it is full moon and it is shining straight to your room. If not, it is less.
> 
> I find it strange that your wife was happy with a tritium fob but not with a sub-lumen flashlight. I also have my biggest tritium fob (15 cm tube) in my bathroom. When it was in a all-white bathroom, it provided a nice nighttime illumination. However, that was another apartment and the current one has a bathroom with a partly white and partly green interior. The tritium fob just isn't enough any more. On the other hand, all my sub-lumen flashlights (from 0,04 to 0,5 lumens) provide plenty of light there.
> 
> ...



Actually, the 0.25 LUX (Not lumens) is based upon an AVERAGE moonlit condition, not a full moon, maybe consider it a half moon for perspective.

IE: The 1/2 MOON is lighting the room at ~ 0.25 LUX



So, whatever the lumen out put, you can't see it anyway (Despite mistaken posts that lumens that don't hit any thing still matter)...you only see lux. The amount of lux that would be considered average for moonlit conditions (Say 1/2 moon as average for the full cycle) is what falls on the room interior and bounces back into your eyes....not what came through the window alone, as that would only be directly relevant to seeing the window opening, etc.

So, again, if the light is spread out....you have lower lux for the same lumen output. This is why you can easily read, w/o glare, with a 100 L flood pattern light, but, with the tight pattern, you could not. Both are sending out 100 lumens, but, one patttern spreads them out over a larger square footage, and another concentrates them all into a smaller square footage, etc.

In an emergency situation, such as we had for Hurricane Irene and Sandy, where some areas had no electricity for MONTHS, a dim glow that tells you where the furniture is, that doesn't need batteries, and will do it for ~ 20 years...is not as bad an idea as you might think.

Me, I'd rather everything look like daylight, all the time. I see better in full day light....and worse with dusk or dimmer level lighting. If its daylight, I will see colors better, and resolve details better, and not get as much eye strain trying to SEE things, etc.

So, if I want light, I use a light that makes it as close to day light as I can get it. For the exceptions that might include not bothering other people, sleeping, etc...then I can ramp it down to whatever will keep me from tripping, etc, and sacrifice better vision.

A few lumens is fine for that, I've never found the need to go lower, as bounced light is able to give me a lower LUX if I don't shine AT the targets, etc.


When shooting comparisons of lights, the firefly modes always force me to put my finger over the lens to see if its even on....as no light is visible otherwise on the camera.


----------



## Esko (Mar 2, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> Actually, the 0.25 LUX (Not lumens) is based upon an AVERAGE moonlit condition, not a full moon, maybe consider it a half moon for perspective.
> 
> IE: The 1/2 MOON is lighting the room at ~ 0.25 LUX
> 
> ...



Average and not full, my mistake.

However, lux IS lumens per m^2. If you have a 2 m^2 window, it means that no more than 0,5 lumens is entering the whole room. It will be 0,25 lux only on that 2 m^2 area the light hits directly. Everything else requires multiple bounces and light spreading and will be a lot dimmer.

It is true that tritium fobs are good in immediate emergency situations. However, having a headlamp with a 0,5 lumens output and 3 months countinuous runtime on single cell, I believe I could very well survive the hurricane scenario with it, too. To get the same illumination level with tritium, I would probably need to spend more than $1000 on it. If I used the light only during evenings at new moon, that single cell would last a couple of years.


----------



## TEEJ (Mar 2, 2013)

Esko said:


> Average and not full, my mistake.
> 
> However, lux IS lumens per m^2. If you have a 2 m^2 window, it means that no more than 0,5 lumens is entering the whole room. It will be 0,25 lux only on that 2 m^2 area the light hits directly. Everything else requires multiple bounces and light spreading and will be a lot dimmer.
> 
> It is true that tritium fobs are good in immediate emergency situations. However, having a headlamp with a 0,5 lumens output and 3 months countinuous runtime on single cell, I believe I could very well survive the hurricane scenario with it, too. To get the same illumination level with tritium, I would probably need to spend more than $1000 on it. If I used the light only during evenings at new moon, that single cell would last a couple of years.




Well, not really, because that number is what lands on the ground, and then bounces into your eyes (LUX)...NOT what's entering the window.



Otherwise, all that would mean is that, say a sheet in the window, might show 0.25 lux if you looked at it from OUTSIDE the room.

What you are trying to do is to calculate the lux created by the reflected lumens that resulted from the moonlight lux. 

And that's not how you'd do that.


Valiant effort, but there's a few concepts missing.

--------

As for tritium for other than sub-lumen lighting...you are correct that it could be expensive to use it, instead, in the way you'd want to light the place up....unless you had to light it for 20 years non-stop, and account for the costs of cells, charging, and by then, even LED or hardware wear-out, and so forth. 

Essentially, the way you use tritium in this context is so if you say wake up, you can see enough to tell what's out there, w/o needing to grab a flashlight, turn it on, etc. Think "night-light", and you'd be along the right path.



As I doubt that more than a few months would be needed at a time, I TOO use flashlights more, mostly because I DON'T LIKE SUB-LUMEN LIGHTING LEVELS. Its ok as a beacon to the bathroom, but, I am not wanting to read a novel by sub-lumen light.




So I am in full agreement that you and I would prefer a flashlight. I offered the tritium for those who seem to think flashlights are too bright.



My own thought on the lumen/lux thing is that if a light is only sending out 0.04 lumens, and we spread that out over a square meter, how many lux do we see on target?

(Not much) If you shine the light from a meter away, its 4x brighter than if you are 2 meters away....so that 0.04 L is 4X dimmer at twice the distance...whatever the distances. As distance increases, lux drops according to the inverse square law.

If your 0.04 L light gave 0.04 lux (Lets pretend we have a 1 M^2 beam pattern at 1 M) at 1 meter distance (Say, aimed down at the floor in front of you), than at 2 M (Something ~ 6' away) you are down to ~ 0.01 lux to see with. Something ~ 15 -20' away is going to be very hard to make out, if at all.

Of course, if the cd of your 0.04 L light is better, you have proportionally more lux...but see a smaller area at a time, etc.


The bottom line is that some people use their lights differently than others, and, for them, a brighter, or dimmer light, will make sense. After that, we're arguing whether chocolate or vanilla tastes better.

I like chocolate better, but, I am willing to allow the concept that you might prefer vanilla better...and that both of us can be right at the same time about what WE like.


----------



## lightdelight (Mar 2, 2013)

Sub-lumen modes are a must have for me. My H600 only goes in high mode to show off!


----------



## Esko (Mar 2, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> Well, not really, because that number is what lands on the ground, and then bounces into your eyes (LUX)...NOT what's entering the window.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You surely use a lot of smileys.

I am not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean that in similar lighting conditions, a white floor has more lux than a black one, because more light is reflected? Let me quote wikipedia on lux:



> The lux (symbol: lx) is the SI unit of illuminance and luminous emittance, measuring luminous flux per unit area. It is equal to one lumen per square metre. In photometry, this is used as a measure of the intensity, as perceived by the human eye, of light that *hits **or passes through* a surface.


 The emphasis is mine. In other words, if you have direct 0,25 lux moonlight and a 2 m^2 window, the total amount of light entering the room (passing through the window) is 0,5 lumens. What kind of lux it produces in different parts of the room does vary of course.



TEEJ said:


> I TOO use flashlights more, mostly because I DON'T LIKE SUB-LUMEN LIGHTING LEVELS.



Well, this is of course a valid reason. It just doesn't mean that sub-lumen lights are useless. If it is dark, they give plenty of illumination to see.

You gave tritium fobs as an alternative to sub-lumen flashlights. IMHO it is like suggesting a coin cell light as an alternative to 18650 flashlight. A standard size tritium fob is useless for illumination. You need something rather big. In order to be sure about what I write, I just compared my 15 cm tritium tube to Thrunite Ti (0,04 lumens).

Without night adapted eyes:



The tritium tube: I could see the tritium tube but nothing with it. If I put it inside the bathroom sink (white), I was able to see it. 
0,04 lumens pointed forward: I could see everything pretty ok. Not brightly and a rather small area at a time, but ok. 
0,04 lumens ceiling bounced: I could see bigger objects; not very well and the vision was pretty much black and white (black and grey), but I could distinguish the "big picture" anyway. 


With night adapted eyes:



The tritium tube: Well, I could see everything well enough to manage to do a bathroom visit. Slightly better than the no night adaptation and 0,04 lumens ceiling bounced situation (but in black and green). Still felt a need to either move the tube or have a second one to light the sink surroundings. 
0,04 lumens ceiling bounced: Everything was pretty nicely illuminated. 


You talked about reading. It was possible only when 0,04 lumens light was pointed forward and the eyes were night adapted. It just tells that reading is a task that requires good illumination. I wouldn't like to read with sub-lumen lights either, unless there is a good reason to do so.

One more thing:



TEEJ said:


> (Not much) If you shine the light from a meter away, its 4x brighter than if you are 2 meters away....so that 0.04 L is 4X dimmer at twice the distance...whatever the distances. As distance increases, lux drops according to the inverse square law.



This is true. However, the _perceived brightness_ is a different case. The human eye works logarithmically. And, you talked about seeing lux. We don't see lux, we see different objects. 

Chocolate is good... But vanilla isn't bad either. I suggest you to also try some nougat.


----------



## NorthernStar (Mar 3, 2013)

I love the moonlight mode! It´s perfect for not harming the nightvision and saving the batteries. The modes i use most, at least on my EDC flashlights, are the lowest/moonlight and the highest/max modes. Those modes that are in the middle i seldom use.


----------



## climberkid (Mar 3, 2013)

PCC said:


> I​ noticed that the moonlight mode of my L3 Illumination L10 219 four mode is way lower than the 0.04 lumen low of the ThruNite Ti. I'm guessing it's 0.01 or less. It's actually so low that its borderline unusable.



That sounds like it would be a dream for me. My Thrunite Ti on .04 is too bright for my needs.


----------



## Grizzlyb (Mar 3, 2013)

Yes, we use moonlight mode a lot. 0.05 or even less is preferable
For some applications we need a light that always starts up in moonlight, or better firefly mode. (and not by accident push it in the wrong mode)
Some of our departments want to use a light this way, but still be able to easily, with 1 "handling" , switch to full turbo mode in an instant. 

Hard to find a light like this.:shrug:


----------



## WilsonCQB1911 (Mar 3, 2013)

It's a must-have requirement for a "go to" light for me. I have flashlights that I love that don't have the feature, and they don't get nearly as much use. Moonlight modes are the most used modes for me.


----------



## bluemax_1 (Mar 3, 2013)

Grizzlyb said:


> Yes, we use moonlight mode a lot. 0.05 or even less is preferable
> For some applications we need a light that always starts up in moonlight, or better firefly mode. (and not by accident push it in the wrong mode)
> Some of our departments want to use a light this way, but still be able to easily, with 1 "handling" , switch to full turbo mode in an instant.
> 
> Hard to find a light like this.:shrug:


That's one of the reasons I like the 4/7's QPA-G2. Turns on in moonlight mode, one 1/4 twist of the head to Full Turbo, which on a 14500 Li ion is pretty darn bright for a light this size. I've gotten familiar enough with the light that I can do everything with my left hand in a tactical reverse grip.

Activate the light with my thumb and mode cycle, secure the head with my pinky (and sometimes ring finger as well, when not wearing gloves). With the head secured, a 1/4 twist of the body with my thumb and index finger and voila, "It's Turbo time!".

The only thing is that moonlight on the QPA-G2 is about 0.2 lumen IIRC. Fine for non dark adapted eyesight, a little bright for dark adapted eyes, but so far, I haven't found another EDC light that has all these features in one light:
- 14500 high output PLUS all modes capable (many lights lose low or med outputs on Li ion)
- Full one-handed operation in overhand/reverse grip (thumb on rear button)
- Can turn on in moonlight, but switch straight to Turbo from any mode in one move with one hand without switching grip positions
- I can turn the light on in moonlight, and yet switch to Turbo and tactical strobe one-handed very quickly (1/4 turn plus half press).

I'm DEFINITELY a big fan of whoever came up with the head tightened for Turbo, head loosened for multi mode interface.

That's my biggest beef with the ZL interface, i.e. no immediate way to switch from med to Turbo in one quick move.


Max


----------



## twl (Mar 3, 2013)

I voted "Used it -Undesireable, a 'con' feature".

I'm good with 3-15 lumens as a Low mode. On some lights my low mode is even higher, and I really don't mind that a bit.
I don't want sub-lumen mode for anything, so I'd prefer to not have the UI cluttered with it.


----------



## wolf413chris (May 11, 2013)

im on the band wagon, i think they sound usefull would love to try it. fan of the long run times. :thumbsup:


----------



## RWeis (May 11, 2013)

great for getting ready for work, bathroom runs, refridgerator runs, check on the dog.

Bob Weis


----------



## kaichu dento (May 12, 2013)

There are 171 votes saying either Top Priority or Desirable for 74% positive 

There are 34 votes saying either Not Really Interested or Undesirable or Hate It for 9% negative

There are 61 votes saying Would Like To Try It or Take It Or Leave It 16.5% undecided


Again that's:

171 - 74% :thumbsup:
34 - 9% 

That looks like 5 > 1 for Moonlight mode


And these guys who might want it, or might not
61 - 16.5% :shrug:


----------



## shane45_1911 (May 13, 2013)

Yup. Gotta have it. 90% of my flashlight use calls for <1 lm.


----------



## WilsonCQB1911 (May 13, 2013)

For me it's what brought me back into flashlights. I hadn't purchased a new light since the LX2 was new. Then I saw lights with this new moonlight mode and always wanted a light that could go super low. It made flashlights useful to me again. Even five lumens in the middle of the night is way too much.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (May 13, 2013)

For a primary light, moonlight mode is a necessary feature as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (May 13, 2013)

Grizzlyb said:


> Yes, we use moonlight mode a lot. 0.05 or even less is preferable
> For some applications we need a light that always starts up in moonlight, or better firefly mode. (and not by accident push it in the wrong mode)
> Some of our departments want to use a light this way, but still be able to easily, with 1 "handling" , switch to full turbo mode in an instant.
> 
> Hard to find a light like this.:shrug:


HDS Clicky or Rotary. They can be programmed to always start on low (0.07 lumen) with maximum brightness only a click-and-hold away. You can even turn it on straight to maximum brightness using the click-and-hold.


----------



## JargonGR (May 13, 2013)

I voted "Haven't used it, would like to try it".

Given that it would have huge run time I would like to place 2-3 flashlights in rooms where we access 1-2 times per day and don't want to turn lights on-off all the time. I.e. as a permanent low-light solution. This could or could not work depending on run time. If it can last 1-2 months then sure or else I wouldn't be bother with the frequent battery changes. It can also serve as an alternate light where there is no normal light (yeah I know hard) and the "user" could just grab the flashlight and turn it on on demand. Most probable use would be to serve as a night light though.

All those modes will be obsolete though once proper dimming finds its way to flashlights (I know there are some models) and becomes a de facto standard.


----------



## sticktodrum (May 13, 2013)

It's a must have for me as well. I realized my Preons were just a bit too much at night when coming to bed, and like others have already stated, the issue of waking up the Mrs. is something that a moonlight mode addresses very well. The Quark Pros really showed me the joy of a moonlight mode, and the very low low of the SWM M11R was also a nice bit. Right now, the ZL SC52 does all I need it to do and very easily. A slight press & hold gets me whatever low mode I knew I wanted there, and just slightly longer hold gets me the medium that I use just as often. 

Aside from home use, when I'm out at the theater (Broadway) with the wife, I end up reading the program until after the lights go dark and a regular 1lm+ low just hits everyone else around me. The moonlight modes are very useful then.


----------



## tickled (May 13, 2013)

Recently received my first with sub-lumen modes and it's just as useless as I suspected it would be. The light coming into the windows from street lamps and other security lighting overpowers even the brightest of the sub-lumen modes.


----------



## markr6 (May 13, 2013)

tickled said:


> Recently received my first with sub-lumen modes and it's just as useless as I suspected it would be. The light coming into the windows from street lamps and other security lighting overpowers even the brightest of the sub-lumen modes.



That's how I felt originally, but <1 lumen is very appreciated when you wake up at 3am to take care of business when backpacking in the middle of nowhere on a moonless night. It's also very handy during the winter months when it's pitch black even at 8am and you would rather do anything other than wake up and hit the lights.

But I'll admit, I'm the person that puts black electrical tape over the .00000000000001 lumen green led that blinks once/minute on the smoke detector so I can sleep. My wife on the other hand simply says "then close your eyes and go to bed!"


----------



## tickled (May 13, 2013)

markr6 said:


> That's how I felt originally, but 1 lumen is very appreciated when you wake up at 3am to take care of business when backpacking in the middle of nowhere on a moonless night. It's also very handy during the winter months when it's pitch black even at 8am and you would rather do anything other than wake up and hit the lights.


 It's actually even brighter during the winter months because of the snow on the ground. The snow being much more reflective than grass, dirt, and concrete.


----------



## kaichu dento (May 13, 2013)

tickled said:


> Recently received my first with sub-lumen modes and it's just as useless as I suspected it would be. The light coming into the windows from street lamps and other security lighting overpowers even the brightest of the sub-lumen modes.


It's incredible the number of tools that are useless when tested in applications they weren't intended for.

Might be useless for you, but your scenario is faulty from the start when you suggest that the reason is that it wasn't dark enough. Moonlight modes are for use in situations where they're useful, and while that may sound all too obvious, apparently it wasn't to you.


----------



## tickled (May 13, 2013)

kaichu dento said:


> It's incredible the number of tools that are useless when tested in applications they weren't intended for. Might be useless for you, but your scenario is faulty from the start when you suggest that the reason is that it wasn't dark enough. Moonlight modes are for use in situations where they're useful, and while that may sound all too obvious, apparently it wasn't to you.


 People using them in the house at night when the lights are out given as the big reason for having such modes. I use it in said circumstance and find it useless. Get told that such a situation isn't useful for such modes so I shouldn't be surprised that it is useless. Maybe I'm holding it wrong?


----------



## Obijuan Kenobe (May 13, 2013)

If there is light from a street light, for what exactly are you using the light to accomplish that without it you could not?

obi


----------



## kaichu dento (May 13, 2013)

tickled said:


> People using them in the house at night when the lights are out given as the big reason for having such modes. I use it in said circumstance and find it useless. Get told that such a situation isn't useful for such modes so I shouldn't be surprised that it is useless. Maybe I'm holding it wrong?


LOL... holding it wrong.

The moonlight modes will never be useful for some individuals, just as they are indispensable for others like myself. As much as I like the moonlight modes though, there are times that they're completely inadequate, particularly when there's light bleeding in from outside and probably the highest number of those who find it useful are in rooms with complete curtain coverage or no windows at all.

On a related note many of us moonlight mode fans disagree as to what the lowest practical levels would be, with many thinking that the .07-.08 of the HDS to be perfect, while I among many others find it far, far too bright in many situations. 

Your earlier mention of greater light bleed in the winter due to snow is actually one of the reasons that I'll end up not even using a light at all, since there's already enough of it emanating from my surroundings to see where I'm going. Also interesting to note Markr6 observation that it's darker in the winter contrasting your lighter in the winter, where of course both of you are right, depending on location among other things.


----------



## kaichu dento (May 13, 2013)

Obijuan Kenobe said:


> If there is light from a street light, for what exactly are you using the light to accomplish?


He's saying that it's dark enough in the house to need light but with light coming in from outside the moonlight modes aren't bright enough to overcome the light/dark contrast created by the external light sources.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (May 13, 2013)

tickled said:


> Recently received my first with sub-lumen modes and it's just as useless as I suspected it would be. The light coming into the windows from street lamps and other security lighting overpowers even the brightest of the sub-lumen modes.


So why even bother with a flashlight in that scenario since it sounds like you have more than enough light to see with anyway? Every flashlight is "useless" any time ambient light is greater than its output.


----------



## kaichu dento (May 13, 2013)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> So why even bother with a flashlight in that scenario since it sounds like you have more than enough light to see with anyway? Every flashlight is "useless" any time ambient light is greater than its output.


He's not saying there's enough light to see, but enough ambient light produced contrast to require more light than the moonlight mode can produce - in other words, a situation requiring a higher mode.


----------



## buds224 (May 13, 2013)

Agreed. Just because you're inside your house at night doesn't mean moonlight mode is "THE" mode for use. Having a light with that much flexibility is definitely a plus wether you use all modes or not.


----------



## raptechnician (May 13, 2013)

Anyway...
I EDC a Quark AA Tactical. Two modes. I have max on tighened bezel, and low on loose bezel. One of the best things about this light is that it can access 7 modes, and its so easy to reassign different modes. Literally would take me 5 seconds to change the mode I currently have programed. My whole point is...while Im not a true moonlight mode guy, I could never go back to a light that didnt have access to a moonlight mode. Everytime I reassign my loose bezel mode, Im always programming it to moonlight. I would just keep that way, but the low is more practical at work. One of the best uses Ive found for moonlight is for sleeping in the tent.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (May 13, 2013)

kaichu dento said:


> He's not saying there's enough light to see, but enough ambient light produced contrast to require more light than the moonlight mode can produce - in other words, a situation requiring a higher mode.


Fair enough, but I still say that any flashlight is technically "useless" any time the ambient light overpowers the output of the flashlight, so I don't think it's a useful standard.


----------



## Racer (May 13, 2013)

That's why I like the V11R so much. I can start on sub-lumen and ramp it up until I have just the right amount of light depending on the situation and how much ambient light there is. But normally it gets used at its lowest setting.


----------



## JargonGR (May 13, 2013)

It's funny how some people here probably have myriads of flashlights, yet they even bother "cursing" the usefulness of a moonlight mode while it can easily exist in only one of them just in case it's ever needed.


----------



## raptechnician (May 13, 2013)

It truly depends on the user and the application. Ive heard people say on here moonlight mode is their most frequently used.


----------



## markr6 (May 13, 2013)

tickled said:


> It's actually even brighter during the winter months because of the snow on the ground. The snow being much more reflective than grass, dirt, and concrete.



Good.


----------



## reppans (May 13, 2013)

tickled said:


> Recently received my first with sub-lumen modes and it's just as useless as I suspected it would be. The light coming into the windows from street lamps and other security lighting overpowers *even the brightest of the sub-lumen modes.*



If you're referring to your recent acquisition of a ZL 502d, I think I would agree with you... and I'm a moonlight mode fan/collector.

First off, my ZL "0.34" lms is the dimmest moonlight mode in my collection (despite 2nd highest spec) and significantly lower than my 0.09 lm Thrunite firefly (lowest spec). Secondly, mules do poorly on moonlight spreading the modest illumination too thin - moonlight works much better with a hotspot.

SC52 in center, T10 just left of it:


----------



## Patriot (May 13, 2013)

I'm neutral but rarely, if ever have a need for less than 1 lumen. 1-3 lumens, especially in the case of non-edc lights (TM26, EA8, TK75) is low enough for me.


----------



## kaichu dento (May 14, 2013)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> Fair enough, but I still say that any flashlight is technically "useless" any time the ambient light overpowers the output of the flashlight, so I don't think it's a useful standard.


I don't know why were having even a mild disagreement as all I did was try to explain his rationale, then present a scenario (which I evidently failed to successfully accomplish) to illustrate as best I could. 

The bottom line to all this is that all we need to do is use the lights as we see fit and allow the same to others. I can't believe how many arguments get started over allowing free choice to others and lack of ability to say that a feature does not offer value to oneself without doing so in judgmental fashion. 

For a perfect example of how to do this, look at Patriot's post above. 

Live and let light.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (May 14, 2013)

I think you've missed the point.


----------



## kaichu dento (May 14, 2013)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> I think you've missed the point.


I've not missed the point and done as well as I could to explain his perspective, which I too disagreed with. 

But since you want to turn it into a complete derail of the thread, I think it's time to just simply go back to topic.


reppans said:


> I'm a moonlight mode fan/collector.
> 
> First off, my ZL "0.34" lms is the dimmest moonlight mode in my collection (despite 2nd highest spec) and significantly lower than my 0.09 lm Thrunite firefly (lowest spec). Secondly, mules do poorly on moonlight spreading the modest illumination too thin - moonlight works much better with a hotspot.


I find moonlight modes very useful too, on a nightly basis at times and have thought long about how the beam pattern affects its practicality too.
My lowest level lights are my V10R Ti, TC-R1 and Titan, in that order. While the first two see the most use, the Titan has about the perfect moonlight beam pattern, and V10R is just a bit too hotspot oriented, despite the excellence of its beam pattern for more normal levels of output.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (May 14, 2013)

kaichu dento said:


> But since you want to turn it into a complete derail of the thread...


No, we're discussing the usefulness of moonlight mode which is the topic of the thread.

The point is that calling moonlight mode "useless" because it can't overpower bright ambient light is as silly as calling 60-lumens useless because it can't overpower mid-day sun.


----------



## kaichu dento (May 14, 2013)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> No, we're discussing the usefulness of moonlight mode which is the topic of the thread.
> 
> The point is that calling moonlight mode "useless" because it can't overpower bright ambient light is as silly as calling 60-lumens useless because it can't overpower mid-day sun.


Are you really going back to the points already confirmed?

This is not the first time off-topic discussion has involved you, and very often meriting short-term attention in relation to the thread at hand, and that is exactly what happened here this time. Maybe we just got ourselves successfully trolled, but all my points still stand and if you'll re-read my posts you'll see there is no reason for us to disagree about anything, including when moonlight modes are applicable. 

One more time, his problem was due solely to improper usage and not indicative of the usefulness of moonlight modes, so there, we're on the same page, where regardless of my attempt to explain another members premise which I too disagreed with, we've already been all along.


----------



## pjandyho (May 14, 2013)

Cool down guys and put on a smile. I have been following the whole argument and I understand where both of you are coming from. As what Kaichu Dento had said, you are both on the same page. He was just merely illustrating or rather explaining another poster's comments even though he don't agree with it. Relax. Enjoy your day guys.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (May 15, 2013)

No need to cool off on this end since I was never hot to begin with.


----------



## sticktodrum (May 15, 2013)

So...how 'bout them sub-lumens eh?


----------



## markr6 (May 15, 2013)

We all just need to agree that it depends on the user and how they use their ligths. If someone is constantly doing activities in the dark (camping, backpacking, night photography) with night-adapted eyes, and have sensitive eyes in the first place, a sub-lumen mode is a fantastic feature to have.

Calling a sub-lumen mode useless is like a person 95% deaf in both ears calling ear plugs with a noise reduction rating (NRR) of 50 useless. OK, NRR 50 doesn't exist but you get the idea. For a person like me that can hear an ant fart 1/2 mile away, this definitely wouldn't be useless since I want to protect my ears.


----------



## kaichu dento (May 15, 2013)

I think for most part that everyone has already understood that and the only thing that derails things sometimes is lack of willingness to accept what Markr6 says above, and what I've been saying ever since I joined here.

Pjandy, thanks for translating that for me. :thumbsup:


----------



## davidwestonh (May 15, 2013)

markr6 said:


> For a person like me that can hear an ant fart 1/2 mile away, this definitely wouldn't be useless since I want to protect my ears.


You are lucky I wish I had the nose and ears of a beagle.
my sense of smell is worse all the time, sensory fatigue,I would not be a good cook.
i wonder how many people here used to stick cigarette buts in their ears for hearing protection?
i remember a couple of people getting their eyes scratched because the army did not issue eye protection.
if I had used a flashlight even sub lumen back in 76 I would have had a combat boot as an extra appendage 
hearing protection is a idea that should be encouraged.


----------



## wjv (Jun 28, 2013)

When I first responded to this poll months ago I answered "Haven't Used It - Not really interested".

Over time I noticed that I really just use my lights on the lowest 1-2 settings. Half of my lights have a low in the 6-9 lumen range, while the other half have lows in the 20-40 lumen range. I rarely use the lights with the brighter lows anymore.

Just this week I picked up a Foursevens Mini-ML with a low of 3.6 lumens. I like the fact that it ALWAYS resets itself to the 3.6 lumen after you shut it off. Today I ordered a Foursevens Quark tactical QTLC that has a low of 0.24 lumens. Since the QTLC is a dual mode light, I plan on programing the two levels to 0.24 and 4.8 lumens. If I'm not happy with the 0.24, as I have never tried any sub-lumen lights before, then I will change the programming to 4.8 and 26 lumens.

So in the "capable of single digit lumens" group I have: (using mfg specs)
iTP...................C8T - XR-E Q5.......<< 6 lumen low / 80h
Sunwayman....R01A......................<< 10 lumen continuous / 11h+10h firefly
Fenix..............PD22 - XP-G R5.....<< 8 lumen low / 97h
Fenix..............PD32 - XP-G R5.....<< 9 lumen low / 200h
Fenix..............PD32 - UE XM-L.....<< 9 lumen low / 130h
Fenix..............TK15 - XP-G R5......<< 5 lumen low / 142h
FourSevens....Mini ML - XP-G2.....<< 3.6 lumen low / 150h

Arrives next week
FourSevens....QTLC - XP-G2.......<< 0.24 lumen low / 360h

QTLC arrived. . . BROKEN. . . Back to Amazon. . .


----------



## markr6 (Jun 28, 2013)

Even though I love low low modes, I have to admit the .01LM on my new SC52w is pretty rediculous. It almost looks like the glowing artifact you get when turning off a CFL. Since it's programmable I don't care, but if it were a mode by itself it would be a waste of space on the UI. I'll use the .06LM or .34LM as the L2 setting.


----------



## Al Thumbs (Jul 2, 2013)

markr6 said:


> Even though I love low low modes, I have to admit the .01LM on my new SC52w is pretty rediculous. It almost looks like the glowing artifact you get when turning off a CFL. Since it's programmable I don't care, but if it were a mode by itself it would be a waste of space on the UI. I'll use the .06LM or .34LM as the L2 setting.



I too have the ZebraLight SC52w, and I agree that the .01 lumen setting is not too practical. I tried it out, of course. I must have night-adapted vision to see anything from this level, and even then, I can't read type with the light inches from the page. But as you say, it's only one of three choices. I do find the .06 level useful- hard to believe!

I recently got a FourSevens Preon P0, a 1xaaa light with two modes. It starts in a .24LM mode, and advances to a 25LM mode. I really like the low level; it's very useful indoors at night. And the beam spread has no spot; it's a wide, even circle of light. I wouldn't call it spill. My wife likes the low so much that she swiped it, giving me an excuse to order another.

I had a Fenix LD01 with a low mode of 2.5LM, and it was actually too bright for indoor use at night. Who'd have guessed?


----------



## Al Thumbs (Jul 2, 2013)

(Sorry, lost the OP) _The 0.01 lm mode, curiously, was too dim for everything... except probably locating the light itself in complete darkness. 
_
That's a good idea! The power drain from a ZebraLight with a .01 low is so insignificant (3-month runtime) that one could leave it on all night, and make the light easy to find.


----------



## druidmars (Jul 2, 2013)

TweakMDS said:


> A must, but not necessarily on all my lights. I love it on the D25A and C clickies, but not needed on larger lights.


+1


----------



## bluemax_1 (Jul 2, 2013)

Al Thumbs said:


> (Sorry, lost the OP) _The 0.01 lm mode, curiously, was too dim for everything... except probably locating the light itself in complete darkness.
> _
> That's a good idea! The power drain from a ZebraLight with a .01 low is so insignificant (3-month runtime) that one could leave it on all night, and make the light easy to find.



That's the concept that the Safelight Pal-Lite uses (similar to the Pak-Lite, runs on a 9v battery). Anytime it's connected to the battery, it's on in super low 'locator' mode. Not really bright enough to see with, but just bright enough to find quickly in the dark. Supposedly runs up to 2 years continuously in that mode.

The Pak-Lite Ultra on the other hand, can be turned off. The low supposedly runs for ~1200 hours and is bright enough to navigate in the dark. High supposedly runs for ~80 hours. Haven't tried testing the runtimes on it though. Although IIRC, other folks have, and it does run for a ridiculously long time on alkaline 9v's, and even longer on lithium 9v's.


Max


----------



## kaichu dento (Jul 2, 2013)

Al Thumbs said:


> I too have the ZebraLight SC52w, and I agree that the .01 lumen setting is not too practical. I tried it out, of course. I must have night-adapted vision to see anything from this level, and even then, I can't read type with the light inches from the page.


As you've already discovered, the ultra-low levels are not for reading and actually are specifically for times when you have already night-adapted vision. 

Seldom us them that low, but am glad to have it there when and if I want it.


----------



## Dillo0 (Jul 3, 2013)

Although none of my current torches have it, I really like sub-lumen mode. Back when I used to own an SC600, I used to use moonlight mode very often. What I want though is a torch that goes to moonlight mode immediately and simply. With the SC600, I blasted my eyes out with the high mode by accident quite a few times. The sub lumen mode was really great late at night, when I needed to get something, but wanted to maintain my night vision to a certain degree.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 6, 2013)

For me it is nice...but I have...2 lights already with a sub lumen level. And three other light with a 3 lumen level. I find 3 low enough not to bother me sleeping. So I have little concern from here forward regarding whether a light has a nightlight mode or not...already covered. My Nitecore Cobra (EC25w)...lowest setting is around 55 lumen I think...but can run for night after night after night... on that level...and I can sleep with it on too...light up the living room kitchen so every one can get up...pass through the area and into a bathroom, where some other light provides a lower level of light...but really...only if there is a power outage, seldom happens. 

Bottom line...seems most lights now days has a low low....or such a long run time on the lowest setting (like my Cobra) that it does not matter. All good.


----------



## Girryn (Jul 7, 2013)

It has a few uses but is over hyped. Most of the time 1 lumen will work just as well with negligible impact on night vision.


----------



## ShroominDave (Jul 7, 2013)

I have a quark pro QP2L-X and QP2A-X both of which run down to 0.3 lumens. In the house I find I use this mode most often late at night navigating the house or tailstanding on the bathroom counter when nature calls. I was really surprised that I would find that low of an output useful but I now feel I would not want to have an EDC without a sub1 lumen level. Sometimes the .3 is actually more light than I would like to have - go figure :huh:


----------



## kaichu dento (Jul 7, 2013)

Girryn said:


> It has a few uses but is over hyped. Most of the time 1 lumen will work just as well with negligible impact on night vision.


If you live in the city, constantly surrounded by light pollution you could have this opinion, but if you were a guide outside at night with cameras pointed at the aurora you'd change your tune immediately.

The .08 lumen on my HDS Clicky is far too bright to be used without caution when the cameras are set for long slow exposures and 1 lumen is even more problematic.


----------



## sticktodrum (Jul 8, 2013)

I may have said this before, but sub-lumen modes work well in theaters. Every Broadway show my wife and I go to, we end up reading the program or finding something we've dropped with the help of the lower modes. People who use their cell phone screens to light things up just throw ugly light everywhere, and I like to not spoil the environment for the folks around.


----------



## david57strat (Aug 22, 2013)

My recently-acquired Olight S20 has sub-lumen output directly accessible, by pressing and holding the power button. I've actually found this very useful - _not essenial_, but very useful; so I have to change my vote. I used to believe that it was a useless feature to have unless you lived out in the woods, or something; but I was wrong. So now, that's three lights I own with sb-lumen capabilities:

ThruNite T10 (.09 lumens)
SolarForce L2N with custom Erik Kress XM-L 7C drop-in (.02 lumens)
Olight S20 (.5 lumens)

Looks like the S20 may end up replacing my Fenix PD22, as one of my EDC lights


----------



## reppans (Nov 8, 2013)

OP here.

I just wanted to post a side-by-side pix of a sample of my current sub-lumen light collection and the approximate light meter readings I get from each (Specifiction/My Reading). I have to say that with 3 out my 4 latest purchases, the moonlight mode spec was off by a mile and quite disappointing to me. I think many others are coming across the same as indicated in this post.



> Recently received my first with sub-lumen modes and it's just as useless as I suspected it would be. The light coming into the windows from street lamps and other security lighting overpowers even the brightest of the sub-lumen modes.



Perhaps some companies cannot accurately measure the dim modes, and perhaps sub-lumen levels are just subject to extreme sample variations, but I own multiple copies of a few different sub-lumen lights and I find them to be very consistent.

I appreciate some of us prefer bright ML modes, and some prefer dim ML modes, but I don't like lotteries - manufacturers, please try and get your specs, and/or your quality control, right.

(Also posted this comparison pix in the OP, and requesting any noobs to vote in the poll.)


----------



## moozooh (Nov 8, 2013)

Man, I sure love my eyes for not noticing the exacerbated color hues that a photo camera captures so easily. That SC52 green...


----------



## reppans (Nov 8, 2013)

Nah... must be that current controlled tint shift phenomena at super low levels ;-)


----------



## smokinbasser (Nov 8, 2013)

I have noticed that quite a few of my older LED sources are by todays standards/levels much more towards the moonlight level than state of the art versions when acquired.


----------



## RGB_LED (Nov 8, 2013)

I have a few lights with a moonlight mode or level, I even programmed my HDS U60 a few years ago to the lowest level where it remains to this day. But, as stated by a few others, I have to admit that my eyes are not as good as they once were. So, while a low-low is very useful to navigate around my home with dark-adjusted eyes or during camping trips, moonlight is, sadly, not very useful for me.


----------



## Woods Walker (Nov 8, 2013)

When I first heard the idea I thought it was a joke but after using a sub lumen mode found it rather useful.


----------



## Tech9 (Nov 13, 2013)

I also didn't think that a moonlight mode would be useful, but just love it for stuff like not waking up others at night, not ruining night vision, poking around inside a bag, and not bothering others in dark but crowded places.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 16, 2014)

I just got a Zebralight SC600w MKII today. It has the lowest mode of any light I have had and I am excited to try them out. I have a couple of nice lights with moonlight mode to compare the Zebralight to. I have a Thrunite Neutron 1A with neutral white XM-L and also a Solarforce host with a International Outdoor 4 mode P60 drop-in with a neutral white XM-L2. The Thrunite and the P60 setup are almost the same on the output of their moon modes and I use them every night. In my comparison the Zebralight's brightest moon mode is just a little brighter than either of the other two. However, the lowest and middle moonlight modes on the Zebralight are noticeably lower. The lowest one on the Zebralight is so low that you can't even see it when you shine one of my other moon modes on it!


----------



## PCC (Jan 16, 2014)

I have two lights that will do crazy low lows. So low that you can stare right at the emitter with night adapted eyesight and not hurt it. You can then go even lower than that. When lumens drop below about 0.0005 it becomes unusable to me. The RRT-01, with its magnetic control ring, has far better control of ultra low output than the Quantum DD.


----------



## Etsu (Jan 17, 2014)

My lowest low-low light (even lower than a ZL SC52) is an astronomy flashlight I bought many, many years ago (when LEDs were just coming out for special-order flashlights). It has dual red/white LEDs, with an adjustable dimmer. I can crank it down so the LEDs are barely lit. The red mode is much dimmer than the white, but even the white goes down very very low. Max mode is probably around 2 lumens for the white (no idea for the red, but obviously less since we don't perceive red as well). Minimum I have no idea, but has to be less than 0.001 lumens.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Jan 17, 2014)

I got to try out my SC600w MKII moonlight modes last night. The middle one is the ticket for me. The middle one seems about 1/2 to 3/4 as bright as the moonlight mode on my Thrunite Neutron.


----------



## Poppy (Jan 17, 2014)

reppans said:


> OP here.
> 
> I just wanted to post a side-by-side pix of a sample of my current sub-lumen light collection and the approximate light meter readings I get from each (Specifiction/My Reading). I have to say that with 3 out my 4 latest purchases, the moonlight mode spec was off by a mile and quite disappointing to me. I think many others are coming across the same as indicated in this post.
> 
> ...



Wow!
The specs for that SC52 are really off compared to the other lights, and that ugly green/blue tint are the ones that I see on those dollar store leds. I'm really surprised. I don't have one, but isn't the SC52 a highly regarded light?


----------



## Etsu (Jan 17, 2014)

Poppy said:


> Wow!
> The specs for that SC52 are really off compared to the other lights, and that ugly green/blue tint are the ones that I see on those dollar store leds. I'm really surprised. I don't have one, but isn't the SC52 a highly regarded light?



Yes, the SC52 is highly regarded for the cool user interface it has, and small size. But, it's definitely the greenest of all my lights. It's not highly regarded for its tint! If you're hyper-sensitive to green tints, stay away. It doesn't bother me, though. It's only noticeable when doing white-wall tests. For normal use, it looks fine.


----------



## Etsu (Jan 18, 2014)

Okay, here's my moonlights. Camera settings: ISO 200, F/8, 2 second exposure. White balance: daylight.
Note that I had to overexpose a bit, in order for the dimmest setting of the SC52 to show up. This makes the SC52 highest moonlight look almost as bright as the Quarks. In reality, it looks less than half as bright as the Quarks. Aside from that, the rest of the moonlights look pretty much the way it shows up here.


----------



## reppans (Jan 18, 2014)

Etsu said:


> Note that I had to overexpose a bit, in order for the dimmest setting of the SC52 to show up. This makes the SC52 highest moonlight look almost as bright as the Quarks. In reality, it looks less than half as bright as the Quarks.



Great comparison shot... Could you possibly underexpose it (and/or flip an overhead light on) so there's some detail in the hotspots of the all the "brighter" lights (yeah you'll probably lose L2B&C). One shot overexposed for spill and one underexposed for hotspot makes a huge difference in being able to discern the brightness differences. 

Also agree that the SC52 "appears" about half as bright as the Quarks, but due the logarithmic perception thing, that means ~ 1/3 to 1/4 the lumen output, which is about what I measure it to be. If you are using a DSLR, you can use it to meter the lumen outputs as well - just calibrate to, and meter for, shutter speed.


----------



## Etsu (Jan 18, 2014)

reppans said:


> Great comparison shot... Could you possibly underexpose it (and/or flip an overhead light on) so there's some detail in the hotspots of the all the "brighter" lights (yeah you'll probably lose L2B&C). One shot overexposed for spill and one underexposed for hotspot makes a huge difference in being able to discern the brightness differences.



I did take a half-second exposure at the same time. Here it is:







The dimmest moonlight mode of the SC52 is lost in the above exposure, but it better shows the brightness differences in the brighter moonlight modes of the other lights.




> Also agree that the SC52 "appears" about half as bright as the Quarks, but due the logarithmic perception thing, that means ~ 1/3 to 1/4 the lumen output, which is about what I measure it to be. If you are using a DSLR, you can use it to meter the lumen outputs as well - just calibrate to, and meter for, shutter speed.



I'm not so sure the logarithmic perception applies well at very low brightness levels. By that point, our eyes are no longer gaining/losing night adaptation, and our pupils aren't dilating. So the physiological reasons for seeing light in a logarithmic way no longer applies. My guess is that that SC52 Low2A mode is a little less than 0.1 lumens. The Quark XPG2 is about 0.2 lumens, and the Quark XML2 is about 0.3 lumens.


----------



## reppans (Jan 18, 2014)

Etsu said:


> I'm not so sure the logarithmic perception applies well at very low brightness levels. By that point, our eyes are no longer gaining/losing night adaptation, and our pupils aren't dilating. So the physiological reasons for seeing light in a logarithmic way no longer applies. My guess is that that SC52 Low2A mode is a little less than 0.1 lumens. The Quark XPG2 is about 0.2 lumens, and the Quark XML2 is about 0.3 lumens.



I personally believe the logarithmic light perception thing is a pure psychological thing and does not account for the biomechanics of pupil dilation and rhodopsin. In any case, your guesstimates are about what I measure for each of the lights and helps confirm that my SC52 is "normal" (ie, not sample variation) and explain the 3x spec difference in runtime (efficiency) between a QPA-X and SC52 for should be the same mode (although a side-by-side sub-lumen runtime test didn't turn out quite that way). And while we are on the subject, how do you find the two lights 3 lumen modes? I measure them to be 3 lms and 1.5 lms.... the rest of the modes OK - just off by the usual conservative vs liberal lumen scale thing.


----------



## Etsu (Jan 18, 2014)

reppans said:


> In any case, your guesstimates are about what I measure for each of the lights and helps confirm that my SC52 is "normal" (ie, not sample variation) and explain the 3x spec difference in runtime (efficiency) between a QPA-X and SC52 for should be the same mode (although a side-by-side sub-lumen runtime test didn't turn out quite that way).



Wow... you had the patience for doing a run-time moonlight mode test? How did it turn out?



> And while we are on the subject, how do you find the two lights 3 lumen modes? I measure them to be 3 lms and 1.5 lms.... the rest of the modes OK - just off by the usual conservative vs liberal lumen scale thing.



I haven't measured, but again, I'd estimate that the SC52 Low1 mode is about half as bright as the Quark's low mode. If the Quark is really 3 lumens (and it probably is), then I'd agree with your estimate that the SC52 is about 1.5 lumens. From my measurements on the SC52 medium modes, they seem to be fairly close to ZL's stated specs. The SC52's brightest two high modes are overstated by ZL, and nowhere close to the QP2A-X max (which is understated).


----------



## jruser (Jan 18, 2014)

I didn't think I cared for it, but I recently swapped my Quark for a D25LC2. The first time I powered up the Eagletac in middle of the night, I realized how much I really missed moonlight mode.


----------



## reppans (Jan 18, 2014)

Etsu said:


> Wow... you had the patience for doing a run-time moonlight mode test? How did it turn out?
> 
> I haven't measured, but again, I'd estimate that the SC52 Low1 mode is about half as bright as the Quark's low mode. If the Quark is really 3 lumens (and it probably is), then I'd agree with your estimate that the SC52 is about 1.5 lumens. From my measurements on the SC52 medium modes, they seem to be fairly close to ZL's stated specs. The SC52's brightest two high modes are overstated by ZL, and nowhere close to the QP2A-X max (which is understated).



I run my sub-lumen runtime tests on AAAAs from a 9V.... cuts the time down from weeks to days - HERE's was the kick-off: Let's just say the SC52 won the highest spec sheet claims, and longest actually hours of runtime, but it lost on lumen-hrs of efficiency. I was surprised, as I have a first gen H51w (0.2 lm spec) that measures 3x as bright and ran longer (in a previous test). The winner was a real surprise, and it wasn't even close...... I'm doing a few more low lumen side-by-sides and may get around to posting all the results in separate thread.

Agree the Quark 280 lms is understated, but I think it's due to the fact that 47's doesn't separately disclose the step-down for the light. I use their LV XML heads to calibrate my light meter (any mode) and match Ti-force's readings HERE. He's the only reviewer I've seen on CPF that claims laboratory lumen accuracy... and this calibration matches up pretty well with the rest of AA/sub-lumen collection. In comparison, my ZLs are consistently ~25-30% overstated, except for all the L modes on this SC52 which are off by 2-4x.


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 23, 2014)

Etsu said:


> Okay, here's my moonlights. Camera settings: ISO 200, F/8, 2 second exposure. White balance: daylight.
> Note that I had to overexpose a bit, in order for the dimmest setting of the SC52 to show up. This makes the SC52 highest moonlight look almost as bright as the Quarks. In reality, it looks less than half as bright as the Quarks. Aside from that, the rest of the moonlights look pretty much the way it shows up here.


I'd love to see the new HDS .02 in there, along with the SC600 mkII, V10R and TC-R1. 
I think my V10R Ti would probably be lower than the SC52, but I know for a fact the TC-R1 would.

Great photo and I really like that you included the legendary Solitaire!


----------



## glg20 (Jan 23, 2014)

I recently purchased a SF Titan and have been using the lowest settings a lot early in the morning. With 57 year old eyes my night vision probably is not as great as someone that is younger. Very useful to keep from waking the wife.


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 23, 2014)

The Titan has the perfect beam pattern and tint for ulra-low levels and they just don't come any easier to use.


----------



## PCC (Feb 7, 2014)

Here are a few photos that I've taken of my lights that go to one lumen or less. I had to separate them into two groups: infinitely adjustable and fixed output lights.

Here are three of four of my infinitely adjustable lights (forgot to get the Quantum DD out to play). They're, from left to right: ThruNite Ti (used for comparison purposes); Peak Logan QTC set to as low as I could get it, but, with some QTC drift; JetBeam RRT01 set to about as low as I could get it; Peak Eiger QTC set to as low as I could get it, but, with some QTC drift. The photos were taken at different exposures to highlight the different outputs.














Here are the fixed output lights on their lowest modes (from left to right): Spark SD-6 500CW with the optional reflector: ThruNite T30 with XP-G2 swap; 4Sevens Quark 123T; ThruNite T10; Ra Clicky 120 with 219 swap; ThruNite Ti moonlight; L3 L10 219 four mode; in the forefront is the JetBeam RRT01 for comparison. Yes, it is on.














I turned off the SD-6 because it was too bright.


----------



## Stockhouse13 (Feb 8, 2014)

A Nice neutral or Warm moonlight of 1-2, tailstanding is nice during storms such as Sandy. Enough light to see and good battery duration.


----------

