# Tactical but not Practical!



## kelmo (Aug 4, 2014)

Hello all,

A few weeks back we celebrated my daughters birthdays at a water park. Our group was placed in a covered secluded area in the park. Me being the flashlight guy I put a EB2 in my swim bag. It got dark and our seating area did not have lighting. I think to myself hey, I get to show off! Sweeping the area with the EB2 on low did not do the trick and 500 lumens was definitely painful. Having a flashlight was definitely practical but the 500 lumen high was not practical to look for missing flip flops under tables. 

As I have been a flashaholic for at least 10 years I have an increasing appreciation for sub 100 lumen lights with long runtimes. When I was packing my light I thought about taking my older E2L with the 65 lumen high. That would have been perfect for the final gear sweep. But alas, I am conflicted. My inner flashaholic still wants to have the brightest light when meeting someone else with a light. My ego made me choose the wrong light that night.

But you know what? I'm good with that!

Thanks for sharing.

kelmo


----------



## skillet (Aug 4, 2014)

So true. Don't care for multi mode lights, but it is so needed with emitters being so powerful now. I use a EB1 head with practically a dead battery around the house for most everything. I've blinded myself countless time with one of my selections when doing the simplest of tasks that the 3LEDs in an A2 would have sufficed.


----------



## nbp (Aug 5, 2014)

The REAL problem is that you only had ONE light...you had a high output thrower, where was the flooder?!?


----------



## TMedina (Aug 5, 2014)

*grin* Someone else once said, the more you post here, the less lumens you tend to carry.

I'm all for having a tactical bright, but for 99% of your needs, it's overkill, including hunting for flip-flops. 

These days, I'm all for practical output levels - on rare occasions, I'll sport a tactical light, but I always have at least one practical-level light to pair it with.


----------



## TEEJ (Aug 5, 2014)

TMedina said:


> *grin* Someone else once said, the more you post here, the less lumens you tend to carry.
> 
> I'm all for having a tactical bright, but for 99% of your needs, it's overkill, including hunting for flip-flops.
> 
> These days, I'm all for practical output levels - on rare occasions, I'll sport a tactical light, but I always have at least one practical-level light to pair it with.



Unless expecting tactical ops in the water park, ideally, you would have brought light(s) that would be appropriate for the projected use.

Lets say the park was hit with a freak storm, and the lights were knocked out and people panic and stampede for the exits they can't find, etc.....the brighter light would be a boon, and having a light with enough throw to illuminate an escape route, to know which way to go, would be great...but, that same throwy beam would glare close up, and suck for finding flip flops, etc...so a small floody beam would be best for that. A key chain type light is typically pretty floody simply due to a small head size for example. A low on a throwy light is not the same as a floody light, its just a smaller dim circle of light instead of a smaller bright circle of light when you change outputs. A floody pattern gives a large dim circel vs a brighter dim circle, or pool, etc.

So, its not that the tactical light is overkill per se, its also underkill, in that its beam pattern is only going to be a good fit for longer range emergencies, and, rarely for the projected task lighting, etc.


----------



## TMedina (Aug 5, 2014)

Sorry, you lost me at "underkill".

But we agree that a high output "tactical" light will not be the best possible use for the majority of common flashlight tasks, yes?


----------



## cland72 (Aug 5, 2014)

This is why I've fallen in love with the Malkoff M61L 219. You get 5 hours of regulated runtime in a 2x123 host, and plenty of brightness for most tasks. Yes, it doesn't have the ultra long low runtime that some dual mode lights do, but it's perfect for about 90% of my flashlight use.


----------



## kelmo (Aug 5, 2014)

nbp said:


> The REAL problem is that you only had ONE light...you had a high output thrower, where was the flooder?!?



Actually I had an Arc AAA (10 lumen model) in my swim trunks!


----------



## Poppy (Aug 5, 2014)

There are those who will argue that a thrower can be made a flooder (with a diffuser) but not the other way around.

I would argue that most (idk, maybe 85%) of my flashlight use is in the 5-20 foot range, and the balance of 95% is out to 80 feet. My general purpose/practical go-to lights are 18650 XML's or XM-L2's in a P60 or smaller head, and maybe shallower reflector lights. They all have pretty much have 3 light settings. They may not be flooders per se, but they certainly would NOT be Classified as throwers. 

The other part of my argument for a non-thrower is, that if I need to see something 150 yards away, but my light is only good for 100 yards, I can get off my butt, and walk 50 yards closer to the target in about 15 seconds, and then my light would be good enough. 

The last time I brought a "thrower" to a party was to a boyscout campfire and I didn't want my grand kids to be out-done. When I fired mine up, I was a little embarrassed, for others may have thought that I was over-compensating for other, ahem, more personal, shortcomings. 

Kelmo,
Thanks for bringing this up. Because I agree... tightly focused beams, while necessary for certain tasks, are not, IMO as useful, generally speaking, nor as practical, again, generally, as a more diffused beam is. I think that many people get too caught up in distance of throw, at least initially, and only later come to appreciate beam patterns.


----------



## kelmo (Aug 6, 2014)

I just picked up an Ion on the Marketplace. I hope it is as waterproof as my trusty Arc AAA!


----------



## TEEJ (Aug 6, 2014)

Floody beams are FAR more practical for daily use, in that MOST daily use involves close up task lighting, etc.

A thrower has its uses (Seeing things farther away), but, for daily use, that is not the normal scenario.

Of course, everyone's lives are different, and, for some people, throw IS required on a daily basis...and, they need a thrower.

Even the ones who DO need a thrower regularly ALSO tend to need a flooder. A diffuser on a thrower to make it floodier is a giant waste of cell energy, as the OTF losses are tremendous, and a dedicated flood makes more sense...especially if you don't want the hassle of manipulating a diffuser film to use your light, etc. The flip cover lenses (ET, etc) can make that easier, but, those lights tend to get too large for pocket use for most people.

So, MOST people JUST need a flood, and some might need to ADD a thrower if appropriate/desired.

The water is of course quite muddied lately, as there are floody lights with more throw than some throwers...so, the distinction is becoming a bit useless in that the two categories can overlap significantly.

My personal belief is we should simply refer to the range or cd instead of "thrower", so we would know the lumens and the cd, and can, generally, predict the beam character from there as far as how far and how fat it might be.




After that, its about the specific beam characteristics, runtimes, and UI that further tailor a light to your useage.


----------



## Poppy (Aug 6, 2014)

TEEJ said:


> My personal belief is we should simply refer to the range or cd instead of "thrower", so we would know the lumens and the cd, and can, generally, predict the beam character from there as far as how far and how fat it might be.
> 
> After that, its about the specific beam characteristics, runtimes, and UI that further tailor a light to your useage.



I can't argue with that logic.
For example the rayovac 2AA indestructible is a 100 lumen thrower. Not a whole lot of lumens, but it has a tight beam with a cd of 5550 and it throws one lux all the way out to 75 yards!


----------



## dss_777 (Aug 7, 2014)

That's why I love the Malkoff MD2 with high-low ring. Two usable levels, simple interface, excellent light quality.


----------



## Sixgunner (Aug 7, 2014)

I carry a 4Sevens Quark 123. I have it set for medium beam with the be head screwed completely down. For my second mode I have max beam. I've never used the max except for showing it and playing around.


----------



## AFKAN (Aug 8, 2014)

This is why I love my frankly huge RRT3 (the original not the new one) It's got that all important look at me throw but it also goes all the way down to a single lumen


----------



## kelmo (Aug 12, 2014)

Today I am definitely practical.

Got a E2e with a single stage TNT module, 100 lumens for 3 hours. Very MN03 like.

My backup is an Ion, 3/40 split of soft lumenistic flood!


----------



## xdayv (Aug 18, 2014)

Interesting thread. I'm definitely noob when it comes to flashlights, but as early as now, I realize of not needing/wanting super high-output lumens. I have an E1D Led as my EDC, now I'm looking for a more "practical" light for the ordinary chores... I'm looking at E1L Outdoorsman, or even an U2 Ultra?


----------



## Pöbel (Aug 18, 2014)

My HDS Clicky has been my main EDC for many years and will be for many years to come. I really use below 100lm for the most time.

More is not always better, still I carry a throwier light in my backpack - it just does not get used very often.


----------



## markr6 (Aug 18, 2014)

In that scenario I would have liked my SC600wII L2.

1020lm for 2hrs
.01lm for 5.5 months
and 9 more modes in between

take your pick 

I like the feel and look of other lights better, but the Zebralights always seem to win for 99% of my applications.


----------



## FPSRelic (Aug 18, 2014)

kelmo said:


> Hello all,
> 
> A few weeks back we celebrated my daughters birthdays at a water park. Our group was placed in a covered secluded area in the park. Me being the flashlight guy I put a EB2 in my swim bag. It got dark and our seating area did not have lighting. I think to myself hey, I get to show off! Sweeping the area with the EB2 on low did not do the trick and 500 lumens was definitely painful. Having a flashlight was definitely practical but the 500 lumen high was not practical to look for missing flip flops under tables.
> 
> ...



Happy birthday to your Daughters. I hope you all enjoyed your day.

What you describe is in my opinion a failing that I have found in my experience of the Surefire EB2. I purchased this light to "upgrade" from my venerable LX2, but found that the low mode of the EB2 was too low for all but the darkest environments, meaning that I would need to employ high mode, which would end up being too bright. 

Case in point, trying to light up the shadowy recesses of a switch in a comms cabinet in a lit room. The ambient light makes the low mode too dim, and the high mode sears your retinas. I found the 15 lumen low mode of the LX2 or the 10 lumen low mode of the L1 on the other hand to be far more suitable, hence the reason why I still carry those. About 98% of my lighting needs are satisfied with the low mode of these two lights, wheras with lights like my HDS EDC Rotary, I find myself using medium and even high mode more often. Even the 5 lumen low of my EB1 or E1B have brighter hotspots than my EB2, making their low modes more useful to me. 

YMMV, but personally, I wish Surefire had used a 15 lumen low mode on the EB2


----------



## Jenifer512 (Aug 18, 2014)

I think they have enjoyed the party with those lights!


----------



## MatthewSB (Aug 19, 2014)

kelmo said:


> As I have been a flashaholic for at least 10 years I have an increasing appreciation for sub 100 lumen lights with long runtimes.



Same here. Anything over 200 lumens (Surefire lumens :thumbsup is too much for up close use.

For general use, I still like the LX2. The Low mode is 15 lumens, which is just enough, and lasts like 50 hours. I rarely need the high mode. When I'm going to be fumbling around in the woods, I go with the updated E1L. 6 hours on 90 lumen high mode is just bright enough, with plenty of spill to get around, and the runtime is awesome off of a single battery. 90 lumens doesn't blind me, and also doesn't draw undue attention.


----------



## Poppy (Aug 20, 2014)

markr6 said:


> In that scenario I would have liked my SC600wII L2.
> 
> 1020lm for 2hrs
> .01lm for 5.5 months
> ...



I hate the deceptive advertising that is so common with flashlights.
They would need a magical battery to actually get 1020 lumens for 2 hours from a single 18650 battery.

Cree's datasheet suggests that a XM-L2 will deliver about 975 lumens @ 3 amps.
A 3400ma 18650 battery, could deliver 3 amps for 68 minutes.


----------



## radiopej (Aug 20, 2014)

I bought my PD32UE based on "yay, more lumens!" as it was my first proper light. Cool light, but wasn't very throwy.

Only later did I find out about tints and realise that I love the beam from it. 

Then I became obsessed with throw. I bought a TK22 T6 (because I realised I still like neutral beams). Good throw, a bit greenish in the tint. It's my bedside light. When I tried taking the bin out, I realised the tight little hotspot was too bright without enough spill for general tasks. It's still a great light and will still get the job done, but the broad beam of my PD32 UE was much more useful.

Now the PD32 UE is in my backpack as it's small, powerful and so useful for when I need it with a great UI. I mostly use the Olight M10 from my belt because it can be relatively dim when needed and then very bright when I need that too. It has low, med, high and strobe. I usually use low and high, as they're easily accessible using just the tail switch. If I need more light than low for a longer period of time, I can get to medium with 1 button. 

I still don't have a 1000 lumens + torch, so I'll still be buying one eventually, but I completely agree about practicality - I'm now more interested in an Alpha with 500 lumens from an MC-E than an 950 lumen thrower.


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 20, 2014)

TMedina said:


> *grin* Someone else once said, the more you post here, the less lumens you tend to carry.



Not sure who that was. I still carry output monsters that make the Sun envious.


----------



## Poppy (Aug 21, 2014)

Monocrom said:


> Not sure who that was. I still carry output monsters that make the Sun envious.



I think it was Archimedes


----------



## alexpalade (Aug 21, 2014)

This is why I like the infinitely/continuous variable brightness control (e.g magnetic ring) flashlights (a list of models).

I'm a newbie, but I think my next flashlight will have this feature. Although it also has some disadvantages, like decreased (esp. low) output runtime.


----------



## subwoofer (Aug 21, 2014)

Unfortunately, what this thread shows is that none of us on here actually 'need' most of the lights we have. Many are not practical at all, and in fact most of our needs can be easily fulfilled with 200lm or less.

What it also shows in that the OP did not select the correct lights to carry. There should have been a full flood light, a light with lower more useful output, and a monster flame thrower light to show off and have fun (and of course some backup lights and spare cells)!


----------



## markr6 (Aug 21, 2014)

Poppy said:


> I hate the deceptive advertising that is so common with flashlights.
> They would need a magical battery to actually get 1020 lumens for 2 hours from a single 18650 battery.
> 
> Cree's datasheet suggests that a XM-L2 will deliver about 975 lumens @ 3 amps.
> A 3400ma 18650 battery, could deliver 3 amps for 68 minutes.



Honestly I couldn't care ANY LESS about the actual lumens. I know some people make it a part-time job to prove manufacturers wrong and spend hours creating graphs and complain when it's wrong. Don't get me wrong, manufacturers should not lie...but at the end of the day, my concern is:

1. Does it provide enough light for my use?
2. Does it last long enough to be useful, without recharging all the time?

I'm completely DONE with the numbers games. Call it 800lm max, I don't care. To me, these "turbo" and "blast" modes are a joke, only there to serve marketing departments and catch the suckers that buy them based on that. 1000lm 900lm, 800lm? That's a joke! Go compare those 3.

I'm not attacking Poppy here. I am simply reminded once again how rediculous the numbers game has become.

The nice thing about Zebralights is there are 9+ modes to choose from. If you don't like the false runtime/output of the H1 mode (which is just a NOVELTY in my opinion), you can use the H2 modes which are almost as bright to the eye, but last much longer. Win win situation in my book.


----------



## cland72 (Aug 21, 2014)

I think if you don't want to be called out about manufacturers overrating their outputs/runtimes, maybe you don't regurgitate that information here, knowing full well that it is not 100% accurate.

You mock the manufacturers that advertise turbo and burst mode to "suckers", yet they are actually being more honest/accurate than ZebraLight as a result.


----------



## subwoofer (Aug 21, 2014)

Poppy said:


> I hate the deceptive advertising that is so common with flashlights.
> They would need a magical battery to actually get 1020 lumens for 2 hours from a single 18650 battery.
> 
> Cree's datasheet suggests that a XM-L2 will deliver about 975 lumens @ 3 amps.
> A 3400ma 18650 battery, could deliver 3 amps for 68 minutes.



This is the problem with ANSI ratings. There are lots of issues with that system, and whatever system is used, the light's output will be tailored to make it look better than it really is. This is actually why the reviews that are published on CPF with runtime graphs provide one of the most useful bits of information about a particular light. As with any marketing spiel is to be taken with a pinch of salt. Wait for the real world testing to prove the real performance.




markr6 said:


> Honestly I couldn't care ANY LESS about the actual lumens. I know some people make it a part-time job to prove manufacturers wrong and spend hours creating graphs and complain when it's wrong. Don't get me wrong, manufacturers should not lie...but at the end of the day, my concern is:
> 
> 1. Does it provide enough light for my use?
> 2. Does it last long enough to be useful, without recharging all the time?
> ...



And you are right not to care. I rarely use the highest output levels on any of my lights (torches, bike lights or headlamps) as they are usually too bright. However I like that the option is there for the odd blast of maximum output.

Those people who spend a lot of time creating graphs, do it to provide the truth about a particular light's performance and to allow comparisons based on actual comparative testing.

You are completely right that you would not be able to tell 800lm from 1000lm, and if you buy the latest and greatest just to have 200lm extra you really are falling into the trap of the consumer society we live in.

I remember the numbers game in the motorcycle industry. After the Suzuki Hayabusa came out with its ridiculous 186mph tom speed, and then finally they all saw sense and agreed not to top this (though this didn't stop some nutters fitting turbo-chargers to their bikes).

The one advantage of the continual drive to top the number game is that it is improving overall performance as emitters become brighter and more efficient. Even if you are not interested in a 5000lm maximum output, you might be interested in double the runtime at the output level you like to use (or is that a numbers game too?).


----------



## markr6 (Aug 21, 2014)

subwoofer said:


> Even if you are not interested in a 5000lm maximum output, you might be interested in double the runtime at the output level you like to use (or is that a numbers game too?).



I would actually be thrilled if manufacturers did this...but I'm sure they won't.

Little rant: It reminds me way back when modem/internet speeds kept increasing. Just when you got a faster speed/modem, it was negated by websites packed full of new junk and too many images to handle the bandwidth. Even now every damn page seems to be a video. For once just let me enjoy 50mbps!!!


----------



## thedoc007 (Aug 21, 2014)

Poppy said:


> I hate the deceptive advertising that is so common with flashlights.
> They would need a magical battery to actually get 1020 lumens for 2 hours from a single 18650 battery.
> 
> Cree's datasheet suggests that a XM-L2 will deliver about 975 lumens @ 3 amps.
> A 3400ma 18650 battery, could deliver 3 amps for 68 minutes.



To me, that is more of a problem with the ANSI rules than with marketing. Until the standard is fixed, I can't really blame manufacturers for posting those numbers...if they did not, you'd have people asking why the runtime is so much lower than the competition. Either way, most people will not have a good understanding until the standard matches up with common sense usage.


----------



## thedoc007 (Aug 21, 2014)

markr6 said:


> I would actually be thrilled if manufacturers did this...but I'm sure they won't.



Efficiency is improving across the board...each generation gets not only a higher max, but usually longer runtime on lower modes too. Maybe they aren't focusing intensely to make medium modes better, but they don't have to...a rising tide lifts all boats, etc. Progress is a good thing...and that's why lights have multiple modes.


----------



## markr6 (Aug 21, 2014)

thedoc007 said:


> Efficiency is improving across the board...each generation gets not only a higher max, but usually longer runtime on lower modes too. Maybe they aren't focusing intensely to make medium modes better, but they don't have to...a rising tide lifts all boats, etc. Progress is a good thing...and that's why lights have multiple modes.



That's true. Medium modes, plenty bright, provide some pretty amazing runtime. Still using the SC600 as an example - 162lm for 11 hrs.


----------



## dss_777 (Aug 21, 2014)

thedoc007 said:


> Efficiency is improving across the board...each generation gets not only a higher max, but usually longer runtime on lower modes too. Maybe they aren't focusing intensely to make medium modes better, but they don't have to...a rising tide lifts all boats, etc. Progress is a good thing...and that's why lights have multiple modes.



And I think Gene Malkoff has done a great job with this. While he provides honest specs, more importantly, he has been at the front of the pack in creating more efficient dropins with usable output for longer runtimes.


----------



## LightWalker (Aug 21, 2014)

Poppy said:


> I hate the deceptive advertising that is so common with flashlights.
> They would need a magical battery to actually get 1020 lumens for 2 hours from a single 18650 battery.
> 
> Cree's datasheet suggests that a XM-L2 will deliver about 975 lumens @ 3 amps.
> A 3400ma 18650 battery, could deliver 3 amps for 68 minutes.



Even Surefire does this. Consider the new E1L for example, Surefires has it listed with a 6 hour runtime at 90 lumens but it will run at 90 lumens for 2 minutes and then drops down to about 65 lumens for about 5 1/2 hours, this can be seen on the runtime graph on the page linked below.

http://flashlightguide.com/2013/06/review-surefire-e1l-a-outdoorsman/


----------



## MatthewSB (Aug 22, 2014)

LightWalker said:


> Even Surefire does this. Consider the new E1L for example, Surefires has it listed with a 6 hour runtime at 90 lumens but it will run at 90 lumens for 2 minutes and then drops down to about 65 lumens for about 5 1/2 hours, this can be seen on the runtime graph on the page linked below.
> 
> http://flashlightguide.com/2013/06/review-surefire-e1l-a-outdoorsman/



I just got one of these, and after looking at the graph was wondering: If I use it for 30 second periods, it won't give me a full 6 hours at 90 lumens but will drain the battery faster, right?


----------



## LightWalker (Aug 22, 2014)

MatthewSB said:


> I just got one of these, and after looking at the graph was wondering: If I use it for 30 second periods, it won't give me a full 6 hours at 90 lumens but will drain the battery faster, right?





Yes, that is correct.


----------



## reppans (Aug 22, 2014)

Poppy said:


> I hate the deceptive advertising that is so common with flashlights.



+1. Guess I have a bug up my a$$ with companies that need to excessively exaggerate. Hurts the business of the honest folks that are trying to do the right thing, Gene Malkoff as one example that was used here.



markr6 said:


> Honestly I couldn't care ANY LESS about the actual lumens. I know some people make it a part-time job to prove manufacturers wrong and spend hours creating graphs and complain when it's wrong.
> 
> I'm not attacking Poppy here...



Guess you're referring to me. I have plenty of free time, and it's a hobby for me - no worries. Doesn't CPF have an ignore button? 



cland72 said:


> I think if you don't want to be called out about manufacturers overrating their outputs/runtimes, maybe you don't regurgitate that information here, knowing full well that it is not 100% accurate.
> 
> You mock the manufacturers that advertise turbo and burst mode to "suckers", yet they are actually being more honest/accurate than ZebraLight as a result.



Very well said.



thedoc007 said:


> To me, that is more of a problem with the ANSI rules than with marketing..,





subwoofer said:


> This is the problem with ANSI ratings....



Agree to an extent - yes, there's a lot of leeway in the runtime rules, but as far as I know, actual lumen ratings are black and white, right or wrong. And given an attempt at an industry standard, I cannot believe how far apart even "reputable" manufacturers can be. 

HERE's (green and beige lines) an independent review/example of ZL's 108 lms, about equal to FX 98 lms, ET 79 lms, and SB 120 lms. I get about the same results. ANSI standards aren't the problem here. 

AFAIK, there's only one reviewer on CPF that claims to have "very accurate" lumen results "based on lights that have been test in professional lab spheres" - and that's ti-force. Based on my admittedly crude lightbox, of the above examples, his scale is closest to ET... and Malkoff.


----------



## MatthewSB (Aug 23, 2014)

LightWalker said:


> Yes, that is correct.



How much of a difference do you think it will make?


----------



## thedoc007 (Aug 23, 2014)

MatthewSB said:


> How much of a difference do you think it will make?



Well, it steps down to 75% after two minutes. Over a six hour run, two minutes is not a very significant amount, so we can ignore that, for an estimate. 6 hours at 67 lumens, more or less, is what the light actually does in a runtime test. So four hours at 90 lumens would be a decent guess. You always lose some efficiency when you drive a light harder.

In any case, if you only use it for 30 seconds at a time, I'd imagine the light would last a good long time between charges. And that is really all that matters.


----------



## TEEJ (Aug 23, 2014)

A few points:

1) There are a lot of posts claiming "X lumens is perfect for/useless for...", but, in reality...it can only be relevant if you know the resultant lux...and that is then dictated, for a given lumen output, by the beam shape/distribution.

I see posts/claims about it being impossible to read with 100 lumens, or 200 lumens, etc, because it creates too much glare, but, that, to me, simply means its the wrong beam for that application. Example of Concept - An ordinary incan light bulb used for reading might be ~ 1,800 Lumens, yet, people read by that type of light source regularly, w/o excessive glare. 

We need to stop talking about lumens in this context, its the wrong unit of measure. Resultant lux is what we probably MEAN when we say a light is too bright or too dim, etc....and lumens are only relevant when the beam shape is accounted for.

2) People talk about turbo and burst modes as deceptive/ a bad idea. To me, they are simply a way for a light to be able to sprint for a short distance when needed, while recognizing that they need to just jog the rest of the time or they'll over heat, etc. 

It IS deceptive when the makers include the remaining jogging on high with the turbo's claimed runtime, and, its deceptive when they only mention the throw range ON turbo, w/o mentioning the shorter ranges when its stepped down, etc.

It IS deceptive when they don't mention that their regulated light's regulation is for example essentially regulating the output at the advertized output for 30 seconds or so, but implying that its staying at the level of the first 30 seconds...w/o showing that the output after that could be half the initial output.

3) There are many many posts pointing out that you will be unlikely to be able to tell the difference between your old 800 lumen light and the new improved 1,000 lumen version. This implies that they are the same...but, if you realize that the problem is that our eyes are about worthless as light meters, and that if you were trying to SEE things, you's SEE more with 1,000 lumens than with 800 lumens, even if you could not tell one was brighter.

I have measured the results, and, you DO see more with more light, even though you can't TELL that its more light. 

So, if you USE your lights, it MIGHT be worth an upgrade...but, if you just play with them...the VALUE of knowing its brighter w/o being able to TELL, may, or may not, be worth the investment. (After that, we are merely debating if ANY flashlight is worth buying without a USE for it, etc...)

I can say for myself that as a user, if a light does what I need it to, I don't upgrade it when the latest and greatest new version comes out........the output and beam pattern worked for how I was using it, and, I don't need to change that...so I don't.

When a light was ALMOST perfect for my use, and the difference in UI or output options/beam profile etc is ENOUGH of an improvement to justify the investment, sure, I MIGHT upgrade.

4) I see many posts about essentially wanting ONE light to do EVERYTHING. IE: Put a diffuser over your thrower to make it floodier, etc. Dependance upon lower output modes for where low output is appropriate....even though the small dot of dim light might not be as USEFUL as a higher lumen but floodier beam, etc. 

IE: A 0.01 lumen tightly focused dot might produce enough LUX to see with, in that small area, but a 1.0 lumen mule might actually produce the same lux over a larger, more useful area....w/o glare, etc.


5) I see a lot of posts describing throw and high lumen outputs as poseur or show off modes. This implies that if the poster doesn't need it, anyone who says they do is a poseur, etc. The reality is that everyone's lives are varied, and some people actually use lights differently than others do. A farmer who needs to be able to pop on a light for 30 seconds when he thinks the 'yote's are at the chicken coops is using the turbo mode or throw, etc properly. A hiker who uses the low modes to navigate the trail, but hits the turbo when he hears a large stick crack behind him to see if it might be a bear, etc, is not showing off to the bear...he's trying to see if there's one THERE.

A turbo type mode is simply a way to have the function of a larger heavier light in a smaller lighter form factor, for a brief burst. That can be a useful feature. It doesn't mean its only for showing off per se...even though, of course, it could. 





As the OP revealed, the WRONG light simply will not do as well at illuminating what you want illuminated as the CORRECT light could.


----------



## LightWalker (Aug 23, 2014)

MatthewSB said:


> How much of a difference do you think it will make?



I think thedoc007's guess of four hours is probably a good estimate.



thedoc007 said:


> Well, it steps down to 75% after two minutes. Over a six hour run, two minutes is not a very significant amount, so we can ignore that, for an estimate. 6 hours at 67 lumens, more or less, is what the light actually does in a runtime test. So four hours at 90 lumens would be a decent guess. You always lose some efficiency when you drive a light harder.
> 
> In any case, if you only use it for 30 seconds at a time, I'd imagine the light would last a good long time between charges. And that is really all that matters.



You won't get as much runtime on a rechargeable battery.


----------



## TEEJ (Aug 23, 2014)

LightWalker said:


> I think thedoc007's guess of four hours is probably a good estimate.
> 
> 
> 
> You won't get as much runtime on a rechargeable battery.



LOL

You would if you recharge it.


----------



## LightWalker (Aug 23, 2014)

TEEJ said:


> A few points:
> 
> 1) There are a lot of posts claiming "X lumens is perfect for/useless for...", but, in reality...it can only be relevant if you know the resultant lux...and that is then dictated, for a given lumen output, by the beam shape/distribution.
> 
> ...



Some good points there, I have an old Eagletac T100 C2 with an XPE emitter that puts out a little under 200 lumens but will probably out throw a Zebralight SC600 that puts out 1000 lumens but the hotspot is a small dot at close range. 



TEEJ said:


> LOL
> 
> You would if you recharge it.



I mean between charges.


----------



## thedoc007 (Aug 23, 2014)

LightWalker said:


> You won't get as much runtime on a rechargeable battery.



Heh, yeah, I should have said between battery changes, not charges. I didn't even know until just now that it used CR123. I still don't know if 16340s are supported. 

My preference is to run rechargeable whenever practical, though. Goes right back to the title of this thread...CR123s may be more tactical, but RCR123s would be more practical for me. You can top them off occasionally, and thus ensure you always have a fresh cell. If you use CR123, unless you are willing to toss it out when it is only half empty (and figuring out even that much is a challenge, simple voltage checks tell you nothing with primary CR123), you will actually have more power on hand with the rechargeable cell for a substantial part of the runtime.


----------



## LightWalker (Aug 23, 2014)

thedoc007 said:


> Heh, yeah, I should have said between battery changes, not charges. I didn't even know until just now that it used CR123. I don't even know if 16340s are supported.
> 
> My preference is to run rechargeable whenever practical, though. Goes Bright back to the title of this thread...CR123s may be more tactical, but RCR123s would be more practical for me. You can top them off occasionally, and thus ensure you always have a fresh cell. If you use CR123, unless you are willing to toss it out when it is only half empty (and figuring out even that much is a challenge, simple voltage checks tell you nothing with primary CR123), you will actually have more power on hand with the rechargeable cell for a substantial part of the runtime.



I prefer to use rechargeables myself and reserve cr123's for emergency and backup duty. I like that I can do a voltage check and know how much juice I have left in the battery.

As you said with primaries you don't really know how much juice you have left if you have been running it and primaries are too expensive for me to toss them before they are mostly depleted.


----------



## an_abstraction (Aug 25, 2014)

Different lights, different lumens, for different needs. Extra ambient light necessitates more lumens, but how much is "too much?" People who run the lumens race will argue that the most light available is optimal. I take a different approach.

It hasn't gotten any darker outside or indoors from what I can recall.... 

Taking into account the flood of high-output lights currently on the market, here's some observations from over the years:

1.) Moonlight mode (< 2 lumens) works the best when using the light in the middle of the night when your eyesight isn't adjusted to the darkness. Since I have to do this everyday, I find this feature invaluable. Even tailstanding the flashlight gives enough ambient light to navigate to wherever you're going until your eyes adjust.

2.) 10 - 15 lumens is adequate when searching through a backpack, drawer, behind a computer, etc. when not a lot of extra light is available.

3.) Tailstanding a light @ 60/80/100 lumens lights up a whole room if the power goes out. You can go higher, of course, but that amount of light is more than adequate to do what you need to do.

4.) Walking at night on a dark street or taking a trek through the woods in darkness, I find 100/150 lumens to work great for my needs. The beam pattern is important - the more flood, the better in my experience. Even 10/20 lumens of flood can work. Again - it hasn't gotten any darker outside. I guess it just matters on what you want to illuminate. A broad beam from a relatively low output Inova X5 is enough to light the path in front of me. Usually the moon is out and adds additional light unless you're canopied by trees. I don't think a bear or mountain lion is lurking around every corner when I'm out in the woods, so a high-output thrower isn't on my list of priorities.

5.) I don't own any high-lumen lights except for a Olight ST25 because I find the extremely high modes unnecessary. That's just me. I don't need 300 or 500 or 800 lumens to use indoors or light my path, and my eyesight isn't exactly owl-like. If anything, that much light brings on unwanted attention from neighbors if used in a suburban setting. It's fun to light up trees from down the street, but it really serves me no purpose other than the fact that I can do it. I go for practical over lumens. Much of my collection would probably seem antiquated by CPF standards (Arc AAA's, older Fenix models, 5mm cluster lights like the Inova X5), but I've always favored runtime over lumens. Singlemode lights in the 5 - 10 lumen range cover a lot of my needs, even after all these years. I got an original Fenix L0P when it was released and that was cutting edge technology at the time. Now that type of light output with about an hour of runtime would be laughed at, but I regret ever selling it.

6.) As lights get brighter and smaller (18650), I find the mode spacing more important than how many lumens it puts out. Multi-mode is a fantastic feature is used correctly and spaced-properly. You get the best of both worlds - low lumens for practical purposes and high modes for the "wow" factor.

7.) I find rechargables to be a pain in the ***. I tend towards standard batteries because the technology has caught up where standard AA/AAA batteries can churn-out pretty impressive results compared to the Luxeon and Nichia days. Having a bunch of LiIon batteries to babysit just seems like a waste of time and energy for a tool that shouldn't need that much thought when using. Others will disagree - I'm in the minority here because the 18650 lights seem to have hit a stride in the niche market that hobbyists are geared towards here. The amount of money that would go into a quality charger, multiple batteries, and a voltage meter could buy me a pretty nice light (or 2!).

7.) There are folks on here that own farms, large plots of land, do fire-and-rescue, and professional jobs like police and fire. This is where the high-lumen lights come into play - I would want as much as possible. The brighter the better for these types of jobs. Since I work at a desk all day in a well-lit environment, my needs are just different.

8.) Pocket-ability wins over the big black-anodized bricks that are being produced today. The most useful light is the light you have on you when you need it, even if it isn't the brightest available.

As always, everyone has different needs and lighting preferences. If anything, I guess I'm boring.....


----------



## thedoc007 (Aug 25, 2014)

an_abstraction said:


> As always, everyone has different needs and lighting preferences. If anything, I guess I'm boring.....



Maybe you are (I certainly have no idea one way or the other), but that was an excellent post. The way I use lights is very different, and I much prefer rechargeables, but I still appreciate your perspective on it.


----------



## cland72 (Aug 25, 2014)

an_abstraction said:


> 8.) Pocket-ability wins over the big black-anodized bricks that are being produced today. The most useful light is the light you have on you when you need it, even if it isn't the brightest available.




I completely agree. That's why I never leave home without slipping my FourSevens Mini123 in my pocket.


----------



## markr6 (Aug 25, 2014)

Great post by an_abstraction! I agree with everything except #7 since I really like rechargeables, specifically 18650s. But I understand this way of thinking as well.


----------



## TEEJ (Aug 25, 2014)

cland72 said:


> I completely agree. That's why I never leave home without slipping my FourSevens Mini123 in my pocket.



Yeah, if its too big to have with you, it will be just as dark as not having a light. 

And, again, lumens w/o lux specs are not able to be used relevantly...no matter how many people keep posting how many lumens works for them, with their light(s) with their beam distribution(s).

Its like tools, a 17 mm wrench is NOT always better than a 16 m wrench...it depends on the size of what the wrench needs to turn.

Too tight a focus gives tunnel vision, but, can also provide a way to see down/through a narrow or obstructed line of sight through obscuring obstacles (Past foliage/wires, etc) w/o as much proximal glare. 

Carrying a large floody light with 500 meters of throw is less convenient than carrying a single 18650 sized light with 500 meters of more tightly focused throw, and so forth.

If the TASK is best performed by a particular beam profile, that's what should be used. If it takes the wider beam 10x the lumens to get the SAME LUX out there as the little beam, then the same object can be seen with the same amount of illumination with 100 lumens AND with 1,000 lumens...except the 1,000 L beam shows MORE objects at that level of illumination at a time, etc.


So, while it might not be darker tonight than it was 100 years ago...its probably lighter due to light pollution, etc....our ability to SEE despite that darkness can be increased dramatically. And the historically tight beam NEEDED when you only HAVE a few lumens to work with....to get enough lux on something...is not the same as the fatter beam that uses MORE LUMENS to get the same lux, but on a wider area at a time.

IE: 10 lumens can look bright enough on something a few feet away in a small circle of light, but, not when spread out over a few square meters of area.


----------



## markr6 (Aug 25, 2014)

^Important points there. In the context of this forum (not fixed lighting), lumens/lux isn't a huge deal for me since the beam profiles are somewhat similar. Sure the PD32UE is floodier than the D25LC2, but lumens are still a good measure for me.

If we get into super throwers vs. a light bulb, that's totally different.

I guess it seems like most people here are focused on "beam profile" instead of actual lux as a number (other than the hardcore reviewers) Just an observation...I'm not saying one is better than the other.


----------



## LightWalker (Aug 25, 2014)

an_abstraction wrote: Singlemode lights in the 5 -10 lumen range cover a lot of my needs, even after all these years. I got an original Fenix L0P when it was released and that was cutting edge technology at the time. Now that type of light output with about an hour of runtime would be laughed at, but I regret ever selling it.
_____________________________________________________________________________________


10 lumens for an hour?  You should get a Fenix E01, they are pretty inexpensive, rugged and run several hours on a AAA battery.

Primary batteries are ok if you're using low lumen output but when you are running cr123 lights wide open using rechargeables is the way to go. I don't care to use alkaline batteries they tend to leak and don't perform very well in cold conditions.


----------



## TEEJ (Aug 25, 2014)

markr6 said:


> ^Important points there. In the context of this forum (not fixed lighting), lumens/lux isn't a huge deal for me since the beam profiles are somewhat similar. Sure the PD32UE is floodier than the D25LC2, but lumens are still a good measure for me.
> 
> If we get into super throwers vs. a light bulb, that's totally different.
> 
> I guess it seems like most people here are focused on "beam profile" instead of actual lux as a number (other than the hardcore reviewers) Just an observation...I'm not saying one is better than the other.



LOL

The beam has a shape and distribution of light within that shape...the overall effect could be the beam profile.

The lux readings are what DELINEATES that beam profile, for example - where its brightest is the hotspot...and that hotspot can be larger or smaller, and more evenly lit, or progressively brighter towards the center, etc,...and that's surrounded by a corona, which can be larger or smaller, and evenly lit, or brighter at an inner or outer edges, or progressively distributed, etc. If there's light that missed the reflector, that's the spill, and that can be wider or longer, and so forth.

So, there's "The Lux #", which is pretty much JUST the hottest part of the hotspot...and then there's the "Lux numbers" which could be a scatter plot of the REST of the beam's distribution.


So if you have two lights with the same or about the same beam profiles, sure, apple and apple lumen comparisons are easier.

Its not only a "super thrower vs light bulb" difference though.


For example, the lux is the lumens per square meter.....so a SMALL change in beam angle can equal a HUGE increase in resultant lux.


Lets say you want 1 lux on something out there at a given distance....and beam #1 gets you 1 square meter lit up...and beam #2 with only a few more degrees of beam angle gets you 10 square meters lit up....for the SAME LUMENS, #2 will look _ten times_ dimmer, and I ONLY changed the beam angle a bit.

So, its NOT super thrower vs light bulb, its a few measly degrees of beam angle that makes the lumens loose relevance.


----------



## markr6 (Aug 26, 2014)

I agree. On paper or a lab, yes. But I'll stick with the subjective descriptions on most of this forum. Too much detail for me


----------



## Poppy (Aug 26, 2014)

markr6 said:


> I agree. On paper or a lab, yes. But I'll stick with the subjective descriptions on most of this forum. Too much detail for me



I much prefer the *objective reviews* such as subwoofer's and selfbuilt's
standardized beam-shots for comparisons give me an idea of how focused the beam, and an idea of how much spill.
The lumens for the overall amount of light, and the cd for how far it will reach.

I also really like the run-time graphs. They beautifully dispell the single cell 1000 lumen for three hours claims, and show the weakness in the ANSI system.


----------



## markr6 (Aug 27, 2014)

Poppy said:


> I much prefer the *objective reviews* such as subwoofer's and selfbuilt's
> standardized beam-shots for comparisons give me an idea of how focused the beam, and an idea of how much spill.
> The lumens for the overall amount of light, and the cd for how far it will reach.
> 
> I also really like the run-time graphs. They beautifully dispell the single cell 1000 lumen for three hours claims, and show the weakness in the ANSI system.



I agree Poppy. But my main point was lumens vs lux. I know the difference and why lux is important, but "lumens" gets used (possibly overused) so much around here, it's just what's comfortable for starters. Then, researching all the other data can fill in the blanks. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## braddy (Aug 27, 2014)

My EDC PD35 covers it all with 10 lumens for a normal light flashlight, 45 lumens for rougher terrain, 170 lumens, and then 450 lumens, and of course the 850 burst, which I wish was hidden, since it really is rarely used, the flood is nice as well.


----------



## MrNaz (Sep 2, 2014)

Yes. I am 100% in agreement with this.

When outdoorsing, I usually take multiple lights, as it's not just output that needs to vary with use, but also size. I generally carry 3 lights as follows:

1. A thrower, for long range viewing. Currently I use an Armytek Predator Pro 2.5 for this.
2. A flooder, for looking around while walking on trails etc. Usually some generic high output 18650 that can share batteries with my thrower.
3 A light for around camp. Usually a small flooder. Currently I use a 14500 XPE that is small enough to clip to my cap.

Sure, I could get my flooder in low mode, but then I'm trying to do things like stir a pot with a torch that requires a whole hand and can't be easily clipped to my cap or held in a nostril or something.

Brightness isn't the only thing that varies with a light's use.


----------



## cistallus (Sep 3, 2014)

MrNaz said:


> ... and can't be easily clipped to my cap or *held in a nostril *or something.



The crucial new holding method that our light reviewers just aren't talking about.


----------



## flashy bazook (Sep 3, 2014)

Poppy said:


> There are those
> who will argue that a thrower can be made a flooder (with a diffuser)
> but not the other way around.
> ...





TEEJ said:


> ...
> Even the ones who DO need a
> thrower regularly ALSO tend to need a flooder. A diffuser on a
> thrower to make it floodier is a giant waste of cell energy, as the
> ...





TEEJ said:


> A few points:
> ...
> 4) I see many posts about essentially wanting ONE light to do EVERYTHING. IE: Put a diffuser over your thrower to make it floodier, etc. Dependance upon lower output modes for where low output is appropriate....even though the small dot of dim light might not be as USEFUL as a higher lumen but floodier beam, etc.
> ...



I wanted to say a few things, with selected quotes from the thread.

I am one of those who regularly points out the many uses of diffusers, as they tend to be overlooked (so, thanks poppy!).

But I wanted to disagree with TEEJ that using a diffuser conflicts with the principle of avoiding flashlights that try to do it all.

(By the way, I also posted a lot against lights that try to do it all!)

The point is that you want different flashlights according to the task at hand.

But, there is quite often a need for both flood (near illumination) and throw (far and narrower illumination).

Typical example for many people: dog walking.

In such situations, you could say that for maximum energy efficiency you should use two lights, one floody (e.g., a smaller EDC, or perhaps even a headlamp), the other throwy (typically bigger output and reflector, often with multi-batteries or perhaps a 1x18650).

But who here would really like having both their hands occupied, or carrying something on their head unnecessarily?

There is a compromise solution involving a diffuser which is much superior for most folks. Take the thrower, say a 1x18650 in a 6P format kind of light, with a standard SF spring diffuser.

You have it on flood (diffuser closed), if you need to check out further away, spring it open (it only takes the one hand). Then close it.

What about TEEJ objections? Well, they don't hold much water in my opinion in this type of situation:

--The diffuser does not add much weight (if the diffuser is the 1" variety, on an EDC, it weighs practically nothing).

--The diffuser does not stop you from pocketing the flashlight, provided it is pocketable to begin with! The 1x123 EDC will continue to be pocketable, the 6P probably not with or without the diffuser. Then you either hold on to it, or use a holster.

--Even if you lose output with the diffuser (debatable that the losses are "enormous", I've not seen measurements proving this anywhere), so what, that is quite an acceptable compromise. It can even be helpful, say in bringing the 500 lumen 5000 lux beam back down to the floody, 200 lumen equivalent that is more comfortable for near illumination. Plus, you can get a multi-mode light, so you bring the 500 lumen beam back down to 200, then the diffuser back further still to a very useable 100 lumen floody beam, and the energy losses are proportionately less.

Anyway, I much enjoyed this thread which had a high number of interesting posts by very knowledgeable posters!


----------



## RoccoOnFire (Sep 6, 2014)

I do believe that bright and tactical lights have their place. The winter night that the wiener dog my girlfriend and I were watching for a relative ran away I was very happy I had a couple 1000+ lumen lights on hand. I had to be near 20 degrees below zero and we live in the country. As I was freezing searching for the dog I couldn't help but think I wish I had a brighter light. Well, thanks to the lights, we found her after about 40 minutes. In my opinion, if the light becomes useful in just one emergency type situation then it is a practical buy. That doesn't mean it is practical as an EDC, but I digress.

I also use my Eagletac sx25a6 to clear the house at night when the dog barks. It is a little bright for the indoor search on high but not overwhelming so long as you don't point it in a mirror. Where it really is very useful is checking the exterior perimeter of the home out to the woodline at a range of 50 to 100 yards. If I don't use that I use my 500LM TLR1 mounted to my Beretta. They also make great companions in the forest along with my spark headlamps. The extra lumens really help keep your orientation for landmarks, hazards, and general direction. You may classify these as tactical applications, but for me they are practical.

That being said, most of my menial daily/nightly tasks are performed by my keychain light... The Olight i3S EOS. Had I had any necessity of a large amount of light, the small light would be neither practical or tactical. But , then again I do have a low post count so perhaps the ages old saying is correct. :thinking:


----------



## LightWalker (Sep 6, 2014)

The Morphalite looks pretty practical and could be tactical in a single mode version, maybe coming soon.
This light throws a 180 degree horizontal 500 lumen beam with the optic flipped down, flip it up and you have a 500 lumen spot beam on the highest mode. You can see this light in the video below.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=60ndaFQ4Iro


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Sep 11, 2014)

TMedina said:


> *grin* Someone else once said, the more you post here, the less lumens you tend to carry.


This was my experience. I came here looking for the brightest light that I could afford. Now I look for the dimmest.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Sep 11, 2014)

kelmo said:


> My inner flashaholic still wants to have the brightest light when meeting someone else with a light.


Seriously?


----------



## kelmo (Sep 15, 2014)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> Seriously?



Seriously


----------

