# My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce CREE '135' Lumens!



## xiaowenzu (Mar 17, 2007)

My goodness, this is AMAZING!! :lolsign: Okay before I get too ecstatic from the joy, I just came across the review of the Fenix P1DCE at the legendary site 
http://ledmuseum.candlepower.us/seventh/p1d-ce.htm

and U2 review on this page:
http://ledmuseum.candlepower.us/third/u2.htm

The result ... _Fenix _in Highest mode puts out [font=Verdana, Arial Black][font=Verdana, Arial]*1,678,000* mcd (at target 12" away) The _Surefire_ U2 puts out [/font][/font]*[font=Verdana, Arial Black][font=Verdana, Arial] 1,890,000mcd! [/font][/font]*

I always thought the Fenix's 135 lumens was brighter than the U2's 100 Lumens, because of the obvious number difference. However apparently that's NOT so! :laughing: I guess LuxV is still alive and strong. This also probably has a lot to do with the fact Surefire's optics are so well balanced and they don't over-rate their lights like other manufacturers do. This NEWS makes me love my U2 even more! *dances around the room.* hehehe :lolsign:


----------



## Kilovolt (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

I have both and looking out of my window at the dark garden I have always noticed that regardless of the claimed figures U2 gives out more light than P1D CE. 
The only problem is really that U2 costs exactly like 4 Fenixes


----------



## xiaowenzu (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



Kilovolt said:


> I have both and looking out of my window at the dark garden I have always noticed that regardless of the claimed figures U2 gives out more light than P1D CE.
> The only problem is really that U2 costs exactly like 4 Fenixes



hehe  It's true what they say... "WALL OF LIGHT"
We better start saving coz Surefire's gonna get Creed in June. :laughing:


----------



## robm (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

I don't think mcd and lumens measure the same thing.
The mcd measured depends on the distance from the light (otherwise 12ft would not be quoted). Lumens are not distance dependant.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



robm said:


> I don't think mcd and lumens measure the same thing.
> The mcd measured depends on the distance from the light (otherwise 12ft would not be quoted). Lumens are not distance dependant.


 I agree, while the measure of Lumens has it's uses, in practical world the measurement of mcd and Lux are more relevant to how our eyes perceive the brightness of the light. 
As somebody here already commented, although the Fenix apparently has higher lumens, it is less brighter than the SureFire U2 to the naked eye.


----------



## LouRoy (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

The P1D CE is also less bright than a U2 to a light meter. Here are some readings from a ceiling bounce test I use to measure overall output of lights:

1100 U2 on high 
1100 L4
790 Fenix P1D CE on high
910 Fenix L2D CE on turbo


The numbers are just a relative scale. They relate to overall light output and not throw.


----------



## flashy bazook (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

The SF U2 is NOT brighter than the P1D CE on highest settings.

According to flashlightreviews measurements:

U2 has 55 overall output, 43 throw.

the P1D CE has 78 overall output, 52 throw.

sorry.


----------



## Andrew Nik (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

In my measurement, U2 have equal brightness with P1D CE, but U2 provide more useful, comfortable beam:
(distance 25 meters; WB set at Sun light)


----------



## Alteran (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



flashy bazook said:


> The SF U2 is NOT brighter than the P1D CE on highest settings.
> 
> According to flashlightreviews measurements:
> 
> ...


 
However, on a site selling the U2, I believe the surefire website actually, they state that the U2's maximum brightness ranges from 80-100 lumens, as the Luxeon V LEDs can vary a lot.


----------



## LouRoy (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



flashy bazook said:


> The SF U2 is NOT brighter than the P1D CE on highest settings.
> 
> According to flashlightreviews measurements:
> 
> ...



I hate to disappoint you, but my U2 is without a doubt brighter than my P1D CE, both by measurement with a light meter and by eyeball. 

We have been discussing this is this thread, if you are interested: 
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=156473


----------



## yellow (Mar 17, 2007)

as the U2 eats the same current than two Fenixes, why should it not be brighter?

use two Fenixes against one U2 and no doubt what "light" will be brighter, in advance.


----------



## Dobbler (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*


----------



## 2xTrinity (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



> I agree, while the measure of Lumens has it's uses, in practical world the measurement of mcd and Lux are more relevant to how our eyes perceive the brightness of the light.
> As somebody here already commented, although the Fenix apparently has higher lumens, it is less brighter than the SureFire U2 to the naked eye.


Where the total lumens makes more difference is for working close range, or indoors -- there what is needed is a big flood of light. Outdoors though, how well the light is concentrated is generally more important than how many lumens are produced, as in many cases, all the "Spill" straight out the front of the light will just fly up into space and be lost. For something like a keychain light though, generally that will be used more for close range anyway -- it's also hard to argue with that kind of light outptu from such as small device, compared to the U2 which is about 2.5-3 times the size of the P1DCE. The bigger lens/reflector combo will mean that it will throw further and probabyl be more useful outdoors, even with less lumens (I gather than in reality they are about the same -- just that Surefire underestimates, and Fenix overestimates)


----------



## greenstuffs (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

You are comparing apples and oranges,
One company provides real lumens and the other provides marking lumens. I let you figure out which company is which :nana:


----------



## mkphc (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

does anybody have beamshots w/ a D-mini included as well?


----------



## FASTCAR (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

In my box and my C-bounce test my P1dce is brighter then my U2.In fact so is my ASP TRIAD 3x cree and Amilite T5


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

Some U2's will show lower overall output than some Fenix Cree based lights, and some will show higher overall output. Nothing complicated here. 

Based on overall output of my Cree and Seoul modded lights compared to my lux V lights it seems that a Cree P4 emiter driven at 1 amp to the led can equal the output of a high flux lux V driven at spec (700mA's to led or so). A Seoul P4-U driven at 1 amp can equal the output of a steller W binned lux V driven at 1 amp to led. The high flux lux V's being offered by Surefire now are truly awesome, and Cree's have to work pretty hard to beat them, output wise. It will be a shame when, or if, Surefire no longer offers Lux V based lights.

Bill


----------



## txmatt (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



yellow said:


> as the U2 eats the same current than two Fenixes, why should it not be brighter?
> 
> use two Fenixes against one U2 and no doubt what "light" will be brighter, in advance.



Not necessarily true due to different emitters.


----------



## flashy bazook (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



> You are comparing apples and oranges,
> One company provides real lumens and the other provides marking lumens. I let you figure out which company is which


greenstuffs,

that is why I quoted flashlightreviews measurements which are standardized, and according to which the U2 is below the P1D CE in light output.

which is amazing given how small in size the P1D CE is - and given that the U2 uses TWO batteries to P1D CE's one.

in my experience, the flashlightreviews measurements have been accurate, and when I compare visually and subjectively the results of flashlights that I have, the ranking is always the same to that you get from flashlightreviews' measurements.

so personally I'll continue to follow and depend on the review data.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



LouRoy said:


> I hate to disappoint you, but my U2 is without a doubt brighter than my P1D CE, both by measurement with a light meter and by eyeball.
> 
> We have been discussing this is this thread, if you are interested:
> http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=156473


 Not only the U2 , but also the L4 and the L5 kicks the P1D-CE butt silly.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



flashy bazook said:


> greenstuffs,
> 
> that is why I quoted flashlightreviews measurements which are standardized, and according to which the U2 is below the P1D CE in light output.
> 
> ...


 The first runs of U2s were rated at mere 65 lumens by SureFire. That's the sample Quickbeam had when wrote the review. The newer runs come with LuxV with higher Bins. That's why SF now guarantees a minimum of 100 lumens instead of 65. Therefore, your data is obsolete.


----------



## Ty_Bower (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

I think some people will find the U2 a little brighter than a Fenix P1D-CE/L2D-CE, and some people will find the Fenix a little brighter than the U2. On average, I'd say the two are pretty closely matched for overall output.

I think the Fenix has a relatively tight spot, and will tend to throw a little farther. But, I don't think it's really enough to make a big difference.

I agree completely with Andrew Nik in post #8. The U2 has a more even, uniform output which makes the target easier to view. People say the Fenix rings don't exist, or they don't make a difference once you're spotting something more than 10 feet away. They say it only bothers the white-wall hunters. Well, I think Andrews picture shows the smooth output from the Surefire has less "visual noise" in the image than the Fenix.

I don't know why Fenix didn't bother to put a textured reflector in their Cree series. I'd have gladly paid an extra $10 for it. I am impressed by my Fenix L2D-CE. The output, runtime, form factor, user interface, and convenient battery source all make it a very fine light. My biggest irritation is the stupid yellow ring, which could have been easily diminished by a textured reflector.


----------



## TORCH_BOY (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

Surefire U2 running with 2 Cells should be as bright if brighter than
the Fenix P1DCE running from 1 Cell


----------



## thehappyman (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



TORCH_BOY said:


> Surefire U2 running with 2 Cells should be as bright if brighter than
> the Fenix P1DCE running from 1 Cell


 
Should be but Is It ?????????


----------



## Art Vandelay (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

The U2 and L4 had their catalog lumens changed, but this was just to make the estimates more accurate. When they put the first estimates out in the catalog it was a conservative estimate based on the information they had at the time. When they got more information they changed the information they gave us. They did not change the flashlights, and then change the numbers to reflect that change. This was covered very well at the time. They made what I felt was a convincing case that this was not a "marketing upgrade".



Outdoors Fanatic said:


> The first runs of U2s were rated at mere 65 lumens by SureFire. That's the sample Quickbeam had when wrote the review. The newer runs come with LuxV with higher Bins. That's why SF now guarantees a minimum of 100 lumens instead of 65. Therefore, your data is obsolete.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



yellow said:


> as the U2 eats the same current than two Fenixes, why should it not be brighter?
> 
> use two Fenixes against one U2 and no doubt what "light" will be brighter, in advance.



If the Fenix was somehow modified to use 2xCr123, the light output would remain the same because it's limited by the LED emitter, but run-time would almost double.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Mar 17, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

A one cell (CR123) can run a Seoul P4-U at one amp to the led, and it will be brighter than a U2 with 2 cells. Now, that one amp to led will be hard on the poor little CR123, and runtime will be short, but that little one cell light will be outputting about 150 real lumens. Up the bias of the U2 to one amp to the led with a high flux lux V, and it will be close, maybe.

Bill


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Mar 18, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



xiaowenzu said:


> If the Fenix was somehow modified to use 2xCr123, the light output would remain the same because it's limited by the LED emitter, but run-time would almost double.


 That's true. Two batteries = more runtime. Not more lumens. LED's world is not Incan's world.


----------



## golden_creature (Mar 18, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

surefire always underate their lumens.gc.


----------



## Lobo (Mar 18, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



Outdoors Fanatic said:


> That's true. Two batteries = more runtime. Not more lumens. LED's world is not Incan's world.


 
I'm afraid that's not true. Depends how the light is designed. For example most 2AA lights are much brighter than their 1AA-counterpart, even though theý use the same circuits.

And for the comparision between the P1D and U2, as someone else said, it's like comparing oranges to apples. One is a small keychain light, and the other one is a larger light for serious use. A better comparison between a luxeon light and a cree would be U2 vs Lumapower M1, Huntlight FT01 Cree etc.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Mar 18, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

I'm still so surprised that my U2 (rated 100 lumens) is brighter than the supposedly 135 lumen Fenix P1DCE!


----------



## 65535 (Mar 18, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

SF ratings are nearly always lowballed, and can greatly exceed their ratings, especially in the LED arena, where they rate it at the lowest batch of LEDs, rather than the best, so if you get a better bin than what is rated you will exceed their ratings.


----------



## jled (Mar 18, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



xiaowenzu said:


> I'm still so surprised that my U2 (rated 100 lumens) is brighter than the supposedly 135 lumen Fenix P1DCE!


 Maybe you should actually by a P1DCE and see for yourself. How can you say your U2 is brighter if you don,t have a P1DCE to compare it with. You quote Led museums review but seem to ignore Flashlight Reviews ratings which I think most people would agree are fairly accurate. Keeping in mind the variables that exist in LED bins, I would not say that my P1DCE is brighter than Your U2.
I would say that all my lights, so far, have tested out relative to flashlight Reviews test, as far as brightness goes.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Mar 19, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



jled said:


> Maybe you should actually by a P1DCE and see for yourself. How can you say your U2 is brighter if you don,t have a P1DCE to compare it with.


 Well I just compared it with my friend's P1DCE yesterday and it was certainly noticeably brighter, not heaps but enough for my eyes to discern at a distance. Contrary to the review at 'flashlightreview.com'.... many reviews here and people on this thread have also explicitly stated that their U2 is much brighter to their naked eye than P1DCE.

I think the 'flashlightreview' was using one of the earliest Surefire U2 made, where that particular LED was a rare dud. Maybe he should review the light again, because majority reviews seem to disagree with his findings.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Mar 19, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



Lobo said:


> I'm afraid that's not true. Depends how the light is designed. For example most 2AA lights are much brighter than their 1AA-counterpart, even though theý use the same circuits.


 But in the Fenix P1DCE case, it was _designed _to use only *1* Cr123, so the circuitry is not really optimised for two batts. Therefore, it will only be the runtime that's prolonged.


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



Outdoors Fanatic said:


> The first runs of U2s were rated at mere 65 lumens by SureFire. That's the sample Quickbeam had when wrote the review. The newer runs come with LuxV with higher Bins. That's why SF now guarantees a minimum of 100 lumens instead of 65. Therefore, your data is obsolete.


Surefire's U2 (or any of their Lux V lights) comes in such "varieties" of quality that a recognizable number of foks actually paid $300 for a lemon?
That's one thing about Cree's XR-E that we can all attest to: their general quality is many times more uniform than Lux Vs.

I wonder why Surefire is switching their lights to Cree-based LEDs when their Lux Vs are obviously superior to the Cree powered lights? :huh2: 
I guess this means that all the hype about Surefire "going Cree" in June is rather pointless, and that we should absolutely refrain from buying any Surefires with those inferior Cree LEDs come June, according to some of these "eyeball experts" posting in this thread?


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Mar 19, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



daveman said:


> Surefire's U2 (or any of their Lux V lights) comes in such "varieties" of quality that a recognizable number of foks actually paid $300 for a lemon?
> That's one thing about Cree's XR-E that we can all attest to: their general quality is many times more uniform than Lux Vs.
> 
> I wonder why Surefire is switching their lights to Cree-based LEDs when their Lux Vs are obviously superior to the Cree powered lights? :huh2:
> I guess this means that all the hype about Surefire "going Cree" in June is rather pointless, and that we should absolutely refrain from buying any Surefires with those inferior Cree LEDs come June, according to some of these "eyeball experts" posting in this thread?






> Surefire's U2 (or any of their Lux V lights) comes in such "varieties" of quality that a recognizable number of foks actually paid $300 for a lemon?



A lemon?? Surefire _never _lied about the output of its products, quite the contrary, they underrate the lumen numbers by a good margin. Quite different from our asiatic friends's common business practice isnt it? So if anyone bought the older version of the U2 and got more than the originally stated 65 lumens, how's that paying for a lemon? They ADVERTISED the U2 as a 65 lumens flashlight, not 150!



> I wonder why Surefire is switching their lights to Cree-based LEDs when.their Lux Vs are obviously superior to the Cree powered lights? :huh2:
> I guess this means that all the hype about Surefire "going Cree" in June is rather pointless, and that we should absolutely refrain from buying any Surefires with those inferior Cree LEDs come June, according to some of these "eyeball experts" posting in this thread?



They are switching to Cree because of the increased runtimes, and that's pretty damn to clear to anyone who bothered browsing through their 2007 catalog. And* nobody *in this particular thread disagrees that the Cree XR-E is more efficient than Luxeons, nor has anyone mentioned that the Lux V is "better". The consensus here though, is that the Cree XR-E-- or SSC P4 for that matter, are not necessarily brighter than a good Luxeon 5. Quit the childish cynism will ya?


----------



## Lobo (Mar 19, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



xiaowenzu said:


> But in the Fenix P1DCE case, it was _designed _to use only *1* Cr123, so the circuitry is not really optimised for two batts. Therefore, it will only be the runtime that's prolonged.


 
Hence *"Depends how the light is designed.".*
The fact that the P1DCE is designed for just one battery makes this a pretty unbalanced comparision. A more interesting one would be the cheap creed U2-clone and the original.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Mar 19, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



Lobo said:


> A more interesting one would be the cheap creed U2-clone and the original.


 A dangerously over-driven U2 clone is *NOT* a fair comparison! :laughing::lolsign:


----------



## Lobo (Mar 19, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

Who said it was overdriven?
Don't know if we're talking about the same light here, since there are a bunch of different versions of the "U2-style cree", but I have never heard anybody said any of them were overdriven? :thinking: But I said more interesting one, not fair.  It's not that fair to compare old tech with new tech anyways.
But if you insist, as I said before, other better comparisions between LuxV and Cree would be Lumapower M1, Huntlight FT01 etc. But the whole point might be moot since Surefire is comming out with crees themselves "soon".


----------



## xiaowenzu (Mar 19, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



Lobo said:


> But if you insist, as I said before, other better comparisions between LuxV and Cree would be Lumapower M1, Huntlight FT01 etc.



That would certainly be an interesting comparison!  Definitely, the crees would have longer runtime than the LUX V till 50% brightness. However I think it would be very close in terms of 'eyeball rating'... say at a distance of 25 feet, I think both lights will appear equally bright. This probably has to do with the fact that Surefire's extremely precise optics have the amazing ability to squeeze out every bit of potential the Lux V's have to offer. 

I'm pretty certain when Surefire implement CREEs in their lights, they'd squeeze every potential out of them too...it would be significantly brighter than their LUX V,versions and with be better runtimes. These Surefire optics are very well balanced, when it's seen by the naked eye, IMHO


----------



## yellow (Mar 19, 2007)

still I do not get the point.
one light eats the *double current* but uses older emitter and thus is a bit less, about same or a bit more brightness, than
the other, much smaller, light with the new emitters, being on par or a bit less bright, *eating half the current and still running longer* on max brightness.
:thinking:
Whatever the maker claims, thats what our test result sites are for. 
Or do You all believe the e-Bay "1.000 million lumens out of a 5mm led"-claims?


my car's main beam is much more powerful than any of those and eats quite a lot more power --> surprised?
*where is the point in this discussion?*


----------



## Brum (Mar 19, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



xiaowenzu said:


> This probably has to do with the fact that Surefire's extremely precise optics have the amazing ability to squeeze out every bit of potential the Lux V's have to offer.
> 
> I'm pretty certain when Surefire implement CREEs in their lights, they'd squeeze every potential out of them too...it would be significantly brighter than their LUX V,versions and with be better runtimes. These Surefire optics are very well balanced, when it's seen by the naked eye, IMHO



Well, not to offend you or something, but how is Lumapower ea not able to 'sqeeze every possible bit of light out of the emitter' while Surefire can? Thats pure nonsense IMHO. That it takes Surefire 3/4 of a year to incorporate new technology doesnt mean it cant be done by others in less time. I understand they do a lot of testing and probably have gone trough some protos before the final design, but if they wanted to the light had already hit the market. 

But I agree with others, there is no comparision, they are completely different lights. Comparing it to a similar sized 1x18650/2xCR123 light would be much more logical.


----------



## Ty_Bower (Mar 19, 2007)

yellow said:


> *where is the point in this discussion?*


I think you just made it. 

"New" Cree technology puts out the same amount of light as "old" Luxeon V technology, but with only half the power requirements.


----------



## txmatt (Mar 19, 2007)

yellow said:


> *where is the point in this discussion?*



In part someone wanting validation that their $270, 2-cell Surefire (a very nice light) hasn't been outshined by a $70 upstart, single-cell light (also a very nice light but in a different category).


----------



## robm (Mar 19, 2007)

I think the original point was that a Surefire light rated at 100 lumens appears 'brighter' than a Fenix light rated at 135 lumens.

I don't think this surprises anyone for, amongst others, the following reasons:

Surefire rate their light output conservatively, Fenix do not.
The Surefire U2 and the Fenix P1D-CE are different price bracket and type of lights.
Total light output is different to peak beam intensity, both of which are different to perceived 'brightness' - Lumens (light output) does not equal 'brightness' (for most people anyway).


----------



## Art Vandelay (Mar 19, 2007)

Brightness is like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder. Brightness is not the same thing as luminance or radiance. Lumen, lux, mcd, are quantitative measures, they are objective. Brightness is subjective.

Normally, you would expect a much less expensive one cell light with a tiny head, to have much less lux than an mush more expensive two cell light with a much larger head. A larger head allows the light to be focused into a tighter beam, and lux measures the center of the beam.

FlashlightReviews.com and the LED museum both reviewed each of the lights. FLR measured both Lux at one meter and overall output (estimated lumens). The LED Museum measured the mcd (millicandelas) with a foot candle meter at one foot. The foot candle meter measurement was converted to millicandelas by adding three zeros the to measurement. 

FlashlightReviews.com found that the P1D-CE had much higher Lux and, overall output than the U2. The LED Museum did not measure overall output, but they did measure the beam intensity at the center of the beam at one foot. The LED museum found that the mcd of the U2 was slightly higher than the mcd of the P1D-CE. 

Slightly higher? Some will ask "How can you say it's only slightly higher? It's thousands higher." First, remember that they added three zeros to convert to mcds. Second, remember that light follows the inverse square law, as long as we take into account point source approximation, and the five times rule for [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]irradiance measurements [/font]. http://www.anees.com/6.html

Assuming the LED museums measurements are correct on both lights, the difference only means that the U2 will provide the same light at 43.47 feet as a P1D-CE will provide at 40.96. Rounded, they compare as 43 feet and 41 feet. That's not much to get excited about.

If you compare the numbers between the two review sites, you see something interesting. Each of the levels of the U2 are virtually the same (after conversion). This suggests to me that both measurements are accurate. When you compare the P1D-CE, the numbers are not even close. This suggests to me that one or both sites' measurement of the P1D-CE may be in error. The LED Museum measurement for the P1D-CE is much closer to Flashlightreviews.com measurement of the P1 than the P1D-CE.

FLR and The LED Museum are both tied with CPF as my favorite flashlight websites. Cheers to all three.


----------



## Streamer (Mar 19, 2007)

> The result ... _Fenix _in Highest mode puts out [font=Verdana, Arial Black][font=Verdana, Arial]*1,678,000* mcd (at target 12" away) The _Surefire_ U2 puts out [/font][/font]*[font=Verdana, Arial Black][font=Verdana, Arial]1,890,000mcd! [/font][/font]*


[font=Verdana, Arial][font=Verdana, Arial Black][/font][/font]

Kudos to Fenix to accomplish such a TASK and with only ONE CELL! SF surely second bested here, since it was used to make the comparison. I own neither.


----------



## kingoftf (Mar 19, 2007)

Don`t forget to mention the price Fenix 70 Dollar and the SF triple the price.
Compared with that the Fenix is the clear winner.......


----------



## iapyx (Mar 19, 2007)

kingoftf said:


> Don`t forget to mention the price Fenix 70 Dollar and the SF triple the price.
> Compared with that the Fenix is the clear winner.......


 
ehhrr.. does the Fenix have 6 levels of output?
Is it made as solidly as the U2?

We are comparing completely different products here...


----------



## txmatt (Mar 19, 2007)

Maybe the U2 and P1D CE would be a perfect combination for simultaneous use: the P1D CE would fill in the U2 donut and the U2 would fill in the Cree rings.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Mar 19, 2007)

I think the point of this discussion is that I'M bloody amazed that my Surefire U2 rated at 100lumens is brighter than the FENIX 135 lumens.. I always thought the p1dce was heaps brighter, until I compared them side by side.


----------



## GreySave (Mar 19, 2007)

<< Maybe the U2 and P1D CE would be a perfect combination for simultaneous use: the P1D CE would fill in the U2 donut and the U2 
would fill in the Cree rings. >> 
:lolsign:

That's priceless! But it is also a well made point. Every light in our arsenal has its own individual strengths and weaknesses. We can debate which is brighter or better all day long, just as we can debate price versus quality. Each light that we own is suitable for its own individual task, for better or worse.


----------



## daveman (Mar 19, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



Outdoors Fanatic said:


> A lemon?? Surefire _never _lied about the output of its products, quite the contrary, they underrate the lumen numbers by a good margin. Quite different from our asiatic friends's common business practice isnt it? So if anyone bought the older version of the U2 and got more than the originally stated 65 lumens, how's that paying for a lemon? They ADVERTISED the U2 as a 65 lumens flashlight, not 150!


If you paid $300 for a 75 Lumen U2, and I paid $300 for a 105 Lumen U2, you got a lemon...




Outdoors Fanatic said:


> They are switching to Cree because of the increased runtimes, and that's pretty damn to clear to anyone who bothered browsing through their 2007 catalog. And* nobody *in this particular thread disagrees that the Cree XR-E is more efficient than Luxeons, nor has anyone mentioned that the Lux V is "better". The consensus here though, is that the Cree XR-E-- or SSC P4 for that matter, are not necessarily brighter than a good Luxeon 5. Quit the childish cynism will ya?


I see... so the XR-E LEDs are only more efficient than the Lux V LEDs, the Lux Vs are still brighter, in application, than the XR-Es. This theory is evidenced by the fact that the U2, with a Lux V LED, is brighter than the P1D CE, a XR-E LED.
So when Surefire drops their Lux V and Lux III emitter lights come June for the less bright XR-E emitters, all of Surefire's new lights will have a REDUCED output. Mmm...guess I'll have to stay away from Surefire lights if I want the brightest handheld lights.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Mar 19, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



daveman said:


> If you paid $300 for a 75 Lumen U2, and I paid $300 for a 105 Lumen U2, you got a lemon...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> So when Surefire drops their Lux V and Lux III emitter lights come June for the less bright XR-E emitters, all of Surefire's new lights will have a REDUCED output.



That's total nonsense. A SureFire with the XR-E, will still be a SureFire flashlight putting out SureFire lumens as promissed. A SF 120 lumens light _will_ deliver at least 120 lumens, not 95 as certain brands do. It's about an honest manufacturer that stands by its products and refuse making false advertising. This isn't about Lux VS Cree, it's about inflated claims of some brands.


----------



## THE_dAY (Mar 20, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



Outdoors Fanatic said:


> That's total nonsense. A SureFire with the XR-E, will still be a SureFire flashlight putting out SureFire lumens as promissed. A SF 120 lumens light _will_ deliver at least 120 lumens, not 95 as certain brands do. It's about an honest manufacturer that stands by its products and refuse making false advertising. This isn't about Lux VS Cree, it's about inflated claims of some brands.


i have to agree, it's about inflated claims... not only by fenix but by many manufacturers


----------



## Minjin (Mar 20, 2007)

This just in...Ferraris are faster than Hyundais! Who woulda thunk it?


----------



## Art Vandelay (Mar 20, 2007)

According to the reviews at Flashlightreviews.com the estimated lumens of a U2 is 76.45 and the estimated lumens of a P1D-CE is 109.115. Based on that the U2 is overrated by 23.55 lumens and the P1D-CE is overrated by 25.885 lumens. Before you say the U2 was a weak one, take a look at the review at LED Museum. On each and every level, the U2 measurements are close on the two sites. 

Also, the U2s are going to vary much more between the individual units. Some will have a donut, some will not, some will have a good tint, some will have a less than good tint. With the P1D-CE, you have good idea what you are going to get before you open the package. 

Remember these are some of the best companies. There is no reason to question the honesty of either one.


----------



## asdalton (Mar 20, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*

There is a brightness and tint lottery with the Cree LEDs, just as there was (and still is, though it's less severe than it used to be) with the Luxeons.

My P1D CE has the same ceiling-bounce output as my overachieving L5. On the other hand, my L0D CE seems to put out a lot less light than what other people claim to be getting from theirs. :shrug: I'm still very pleased with it, though.


----------



## Andromeda (Mar 20, 2007)

Done my conparison test, my U2 is definitely brighter than my P1Dce. I bounce both beam onto the ceiling, U2 reflected noticebly brighter.


----------



## daveman (Mar 20, 2007)

Andromeda said:


> Done my conparison test, my U2 is definitely brighter than my P1Dce. I bounce both beam onto the ceiling, U2 reflected noticebly brighter.


Congratulations, your $300, 2 cell, 6-inch U2 is brighter (so you say...) than the $70, 1 cell, 3-inch P1D CE.
I guess you didn't get ripped off?


----------



## Mike89 (Mar 20, 2007)

This thread is a trip. Comparing lights where one has twice the voltage and 4 times the price of the other. I don't get it. I think some people have Surefireitis. Spend the money guys, I'll save mine and get the Fenix (or maybe 4 of them).

Maybe the U2 is a tad brighter, but it's sure not "kick it's butt" brighter as was stated and it's dam sure not 4 times better!


----------



## luminari (Mar 20, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



xiaowenzu said:


> But in the Fenix P1DCE case, it was _designed _to use only *1* Cr123, so the circuitry is not really optimised for two batts. Therefore, it will only be the runtime that's prolonged.



Hahah, this curious reasoning definitely brought a smile to my face... please give details!



xiaowenzu said:


> I agree, while the measure of Lumens has it's uses, in practical world the measurement of mcd and Lux are more relevant to how our eyes perceive the brightness of the light.



Uh, doesn't that depend on what you plan on using the light for? Lasers and spotlights have relatively high Candela (mcd) relative to their lumen output, but I certainly wouldn't want to use one to read a map or search for a missing Leatherman. The U2 isn't a spotlight, but comparing mcd may not be as useful to some people as comparing lumens. It just depends.

I like the U2, as well, but I wouldn't go dancing around the house just because it's a few percent brighter in mcd. If you really wanted, you could put an aspherical optic in front of many modern lights and they would destroy the P1D-CE and U2 in mcd at a moderate distance.

The U2 uses a Luxeon V portable, correct? This LED is rated for only 500 hours, according to the manufacturer. http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/DS40.pdf
Certainly, it may last longer than that, but its performance seems to degrade much more quickly than other power LEDs. Philips' spec sheets estimate around a 25-35% drop in brightness after only 500 hours of use. And we all know that spec sheets are pretty optimistic.

At $279 per U2, each hour at full brightness costs you $0.56 not including batteries. Oh, but those are some glorious hours 

Anyways, they are both great lights for two very different purposes. One fits on a keychain and the other is built like a tank.


----------



## 65535 (Mar 20, 2007)

shoot wrong thread.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Mar 20, 2007)

Gentleman (ladies too?) back to the thread title. The U2 was perceived as brighter than the P1. If the U2 in question is indeed brighter than the P1 in question, then the P1 is not lumen rated properly. That is all we can really deduce from the original posters comments. As far as other comparisions go, the U2 has its place and the P1 has its place, and our preferences are based on subjective analysis. I might like the U2 and you might like the P1. So what? Actually, they are two very different lights and probably should not even be compared to each other.

Bill


----------



## Lips (Mar 20, 2007)

.


 











.


----------



## luminari (Mar 20, 2007)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Gentleman (ladies too?) back to the thread title. The U2 was perceived as brighter than the P1. If the U2 in question is indeed brighter than the P1 in question, then the P1 is not lumen rated properly. That is all we can really deduce from the original posters comments.



Actually, that's why I have a problem with this original post... I keep hearing the word "brighter" but in reality xiaowenzu was only comparing mcd (e.g. lux, not lumens). So lamenting that the P1D-CE is claimed at 135 lumens and the U2 is "only" 100 lumens, and then being thrilled at comparing mcd/lux is getting the units totally mixed up. 

It's like saying he was sad because he just bought a Ferrari F430 and found out the Corvette has 400 ft-lbs of torque and the Ferrari only has 343 ft-lbs, but he just read some review site and found that the Corvette has 400 horsepower and the Ferrari F430 has 483 horsepower, so this news suddenly makes him estatic about buying the Ferrari and dance around the room??

If you weren't sure about the U2 in the first place, why do you need some number to make you like the U2 again? It didn't change how your U2 performed at all, unless you're just trying to mentally rationalize the purchase. I mean, please, they are both awesome and very different cars (and flashlights). From my personal use and all the great beam shots posted they both seem bright. Congratulations, <your light here> won!



Bullzeyebill said:


> I might like the U2 and you might like the P1. So what? Actually, they are two very different lights and probably should not even be compared to each other.
> Bill



Agreed, I should stop bumping this pointless thread. Oops, I bumped it again!


----------



## kingoftf (Mar 20, 2007)

My Microfire 500 HID is much brighter than the SF for the same price...... :laughing: :touche: :lolsign:


----------



## xiaowenzu (Mar 20, 2007)

txmatt said:


> In part someone wanting validation that their $270, 2-cell Surefire (a very nice light) hasn't been outshined by a $70 upstart, single-cell light (also a very nice light but in a different category).




Lol, actually Fenix is no upstart. In terms of premium light brands, they are pretty much in the same league. In one corner you have _Surefire_, arguably the best manufacturer in America, reknown for their quality lights. In the other corner you have _Fenix_, the biggest, highest quality flashlight maker in China._ Fenix_ showcases the best that China is currently offering to the flashlight world, and Surefire is doing the same. They are the best from each country. [size=-1]This is Fenix's motto on their website: 

_"Fenix aim to provide our products with advanced & innovative design, high quality, reasonable price and excellent service_[/size]_"_

hardly the touting of a start-up!  Fenix's are as expensive in China when you take into account the exchange rate/wages, and that a $70 P1dce to the average Chinese in China is _more _expensive than an average Surefire to an American. So I think it's an honour to compare these two brands. 
However, in terms of actual flashlight comparison, you guys are right - they are pretty much different lights, each having their own uses and purposes. 

However, I was merely expressing my surprise that my friend's Fenix P1DCE rated at 135 Lumens is *LESS *brighter than my Surefire U2 rated at 100 Lumens to my eyeball. I never expected that to be the case. Anyways, thanks to your contributions, I learnt this is partly due to Fenix over-rating their LED output by about 25 Lumens. It also comes down to how a flashlight 'handles' the LEDs - the reflector, lens, circuitry, etc of the *U2 *throws a 'WALL OF LIGHT' but the Fenix (evident in the beamshot photo above) has a slightly brighter hotspot on the tree. 
This explains the results at flashlightreview, where the Fenix scored higher in the hotspot, and it also explains the LEDMuseum findings where the *U2* scored brighter due to it's 'WALL of light' factor. 

Finally it also explains why my eyes see the U2 being brighter since it throws plenty of light _around _the hotspot...(in the beamshot photo above you can clearly see the surroundings are brighter on *U2* - look at the chairs & slide) and apparently this is supported by many CPF'ers observation that their U2 is brighter than the Fenix P1DCE when it comes to eye observation. 

Anyways, thanks guys for your information. I think this thread is now settled, and everyone is more informed, as have I been satisfied.


----------



## chesterqw (Mar 20, 2007)

well, throw and overall output is very different.

a 5mm cheap white led can win a luxeon V in terms of throw when both are not lensed(no reflector used) but can never win it in terms of TOTAL output.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Mar 20, 2007)

Lips said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It doesn't look to me like the U2 is putting out more lumens, moreso that the lumens are more efficiently distributed -- if you look at the sidespill along the floor in the beamshot, the Fenix is throwing out a LOT more light there, algother that's a lot of lumens since that's a fairly high intensity and a wider angle than the spill off the U2. That also means it's throwing out a lot more light up into space. Through use of a larger reflector or optic however to produce a "matching" beam pattern, I bet the two would look almost exactly the same, other than the color temperature difference, the U2 looked better in that respect as well. 

Color temperature is important though. I have two Cree lights, identical current and reflectors -- about the same amount of lumens. One that I have that is warmer, and has a slightly yellow/green tint. The other is cool white, with a slight blue tint, looks better on a white wall. The warmer one though has much more realistic color rendering in real-world use -- it's the best of any LED I've seen by far, so it's a lot more useful with the same amount of light, and looks "brighter" when using it in the real world to look at plants and various other things that aren't blue or white. The only thing it woudl need to be perfect is a slight amount of extra red. I was pointing the light up at the ceiling, pushing 1A, fairly decent looking. I then turned on a small red coin cell light, and it was all of a sudden the nicest artifical illumination I'd ever seen.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Mar 20, 2007)

Good point luminan. Also, as I posted earlier, according to the reviews at Flashlightreviews.com the estimated lumens of a U2 is 76.45 and the estimated lumens of a P1D-CE is 109.115. Based on that the U2 is overrated by 23.55 lumens and the P1D-CE is overrated by 25.885 lumens. Before you say the U2 was a weak one, take a look at the review at LED Museum. On each and every level, the U2 measurements are close on the two sites.

The results at flashlightreviews.com show that the P1D-CE has both more overall output, and more throw than the U2. The measurement of throw done at the LED museum's review is the same type of measurement as the measurement of throw done at flashlightreviews.com The difference between the two is that the LED museum uses a foot candle meter that measures the center of the beam at one foot, while flashlightreviews.com uses a lux meter which measures the center of the beam at one meter.

Take a look at the good photos Lips posted in this thread at post # 66. You can see a stop sign in the distance in the P1D-CE photo, but you can't see the stop sign in the U2 photo. That photo is not the best at showing throw. The ideal throw photo would have objects at various measured distances so you could how objects appeared at various distances. Photos provide very valuable information, they can show you a beam and you can determine how beautiful or bright they are in your opinion. If you want objective information, it's better to measure the beam with quantitative measures.




luminari said:


> Actually, that's why I have a problem with this original post... I keep hearing the word "brighter" but in reality xiaowenzu was only comparing mcd (e.g. lux, not lumens). So lamenting that the P1D-CE is claimed at 135 lumens and the U2 is "only" 100 lumens, and then being thrilled at comparing mcd/lux is getting the units totally mixed up.
> 
> It's like saying he was sad because he just bought a Ferrari F430 and found out the Corvette has 400 ft-lbs of torque and the Ferrari only has 343 ft-lbs, but he just read some review site and found that the Corvette has 400 horsepower and the Ferrari F430 has 483 horsepower, so this news suddenly makes him estatic about buying the Ferrari and dance around the room??
> 
> ...


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Mar 20, 2007)

Art Vandelay said:


> Good point luminan. Also, as I posted earlier, according to the reviews at Flashlightreviews.com the estimated lumens of a U2 is 76.45 and the estimated lumens of a P1D-CE is 109.115. Based on that the U2 is overrated by 23.55 lumens and the P1D-CE is overrated by 25.885 lumens. Before you say the U2 was a weak one, take a look at the review at LED Museum. On each and every level, the U2 measurements are close on the two sites.
> 
> The results at flashlightreviews.com show that the P1D-CE has both more overall output, and more throw than the U2. The measurement of throw done at the LED museum's review is the same type of measurement as the measurement of throw done at flashlightreviews.com The difference between the two is that the LED museum uses a foot candle meter that measures the center of the beam at one foot, while flashlightreviews.com uses a lux meter which measures the center of the beam at one meter.
> 
> Take a look at the good photos Lips posted in this thread at post # 66. You can see a stop sign in the distance in the P1D-CE photo, but you can't see the stop sign in the U2 photo. That photo is not the best at showing throw. The ideal throw photo would have objects at various measured distances so you could how objects appeared at various distances. Photos provide very valuable information, they can show you a beam and you can determine how beautiful or bright they are in your opinion. If you want objective information, it's better to measure the beam with quantitative measures.





> according to the reviews at Flashlightreviews.com the estimated lumens of a U2 is 76.45 and the estimated lumens of a P1D-CE is 109.115. Based on that the U2 is overrated by 23.55 lumens and the P1D-CE is overrated by 25.885 lumens. Before you say the U2 was a weak one, take a look at the review at LED Museum. On each and every level, the U2 measurements are close on the two sites.



yeah, but you have to to take into account the fact that particular U2 was the earlier version, which as advertised as being a 65 lumens flashlight. Therefore, 76 lumens is _above_ of what they stated. Now, on the other hand, you have a 110 lumens light sold as a 135 lumens. This is what set SureFire apart from the others.

The proof is here, quoted from Flashlight Reviews:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font]​


> [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*
> Quick Facts Table:*[/font]​ *[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Review Date .............................[/font]* April 2005


----------



## Art Vandelay (Mar 20, 2007)

Surefire did not make a 65 lumen version of the L4 and U2, then come out with a 100 lumen version of each. They changed the numbers in the catalog without changing the lights. The change was to made to make the numbers more accurate. If you don't believe me you can search for posts at the time, if you don't believe the old posts you can call Surefire and ask yourself.



JAG said:


> the answer from surefire:
> 
> "Sir,
> 
> ...



If you don't think the throw numbers from flashlightreviews.com numbers are valid because they are from an April 2005 review, compare them to the LED Museum review throw numbers. They are almost identical on each and every level. The LED Museum review has a date of February 28th, 2007.





Outdoors Fanatic said:


> yeah, but you have to to take into account the fact that particular U2 was the earlier version, which as advertised as being a 65 lumens flashlight. Therefore, 76 lumens is _above_ of what they stated. Now, on the other hand, you have a 110 lumens light sold as a 135 lumens. This is what set SureFire apart from the others.
> 
> The proof is here, quoted from Flashlight Reviews:
> 
> ​


The "proof" was just the date of the review April 2005.


----------



## SmithB (Mar 20, 2007)

I'll take whatever is comparable, yet still quality, for a cheaper price.

Surefire's price point is whack. I'd take the Fenix regardless if it doesn't appear to be quite as bright.

Silly argument nonetheless.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Mar 20, 2007)

Art Vandelay said:


> Surefire did not make a 65 lumen version of the L4 and U2, then come out with a 100 lumen version of each. They changed the numbers in the catalog without changing the lights. The change was to made to make the numbers more accurate. If you don't believe me you can search for posts at the time, if you don't believe the old posts you can call Surefire and ask yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 It's common knowledge that in the year of 2005 the U2's were rated at 65 lumens. I know they did not change the light, however, the Lux 5 at that time were different than the latest batches. They probably started receiving better binned LEDs from Lumileds, that's why the upgraded the catalog to 100 lumens.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Mar 20, 2007)

Call Surefire.

Edit: Here is an old post from somebody who would know about the updated measurement system at Surefire. http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1434693&postcount=9




Outdoors Fanatic said:


> It's common knowledge that in the year of 2005 the U2's were rated at 65 lumens. I know they did not change the light, however, the Lux 5 at that time were different than the latest batches. They probably started receiving better binned LEDs from Lumileds, that's why the upgraded the catalog to 100 lumens.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Mar 20, 2007)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> It's common knowledge that in the year of 2005 the U2's were rated at 65 lumens. I know they did not change the light, however, the Lux 5 at that time were different than the latest batches. They probably started receiving better binned LEDs from Lumileds, that's why the upgraded the catalog to 100 lumens.



That's probably correct. They don't call it Luxeon lottery for nothing. Lol :laughing: But IMO, they are more consisent nowadays in terms of light output.

People please read my last post, the reason that Flashlight review got different result is because he measured the hotspot, and Ledmuseum measured the total area AROUND the hotspot, which the U2 scored higher. The Fenix output in both reviews on every level of measurements are consistent with each other. I must say though, both are pretty bright lights, imo!


----------



## xiaowenzu (Mar 20, 2007)

2xTrinity said:


> It doesn't look to me like the U2 is putting out more lumens, moreso that the lumens are more efficiently distributed -- if you look at the sidespill along the floor in the beamshot, the Fenix is throwing out a LOT more light there


 Actually, if you look at the area around the trees you can see U2 throwing *FAR* more light than the Fenix. I do agree that the U2 is more efficiently distributed.. it must be due the the inherit design of the LUX V's.


----------



## robm (Mar 20, 2007)

> People please read my last post, the reason that Flashlight review got different result is because he measured the hotspot, and Ledmuseum measured the total area AROUND the hotspot, which the U2 scored higher. The Fenix output in both reviews on every level of measurements are consistent with each other.



Actually there are flashlightreviews 'stats' for both hotspot/throw AND for total light output (comparable to lumens figures). The P1D-CE scored higher in both.
I am not sure what the LED museum mcd figures effectively measure.

I think the reason this thread is _dragging on _(as many have stated earlier) is simply that the title is a bit 'confused' - lumens *are not used to measure* brightness (although saying that, I don't even think there is an SI unit for brightness


----------



## xiaowenzu (Mar 20, 2007)

robm said:


> I am not sure what the LED museum mcd figures effectively measure.


 Well it's gotta mean something since 2000 lights are reviewed using mcd figures! lol 



robm said:


> I don't even think there is an SI unit for brightness


 No, but there is the eye. And to many people's eys, the U2 does like brighter.


----------



## robm (Mar 20, 2007)

> Well it's gotta mean something since 2000 lights are reviewed using mcd figures! lol



I wasn't suggesting it isn't a useful figure - I just don't know what it means in 'real-world' :thinking: 
I get throw and output, and assume that this is somewhere between, and better if only a single figure is used, but not as useful (to me) as both throw and output. 

Maybe this is the illusive brightness measure 

(which incidentally still is not lumens :nana: )


----------



## Art Vandelay (Mar 20, 2007)

You are right, it is useful. LED museum and flashlightreviews.com are two of the most useful sites on flashlights. LED Museum's measurement is just as useful as the throw measurement at flashlightreviews.com. LED Museum has a foot candle meter so they measure the center of the beam at one foot, flashlightreviews.com has a lux meter so they measure the center of the beam at one meter. 



robm said:


> I wasn't suggesting it isn't a useful figure - I just don't know what it means in 'real-world' :thinking:
> I get throw and output, and assume that this is somewhere between, and better if only a single figure is used, but not as useful (to me) as both throw and output.
> 
> Maybe this is the illusive brightness measure
> ...


----------



## mdocod (Mar 20, 2007)

well.... the good news, is that after reading this thread, I am 100% convinced that my hand picked WWOS isn't completely obsolete yet!


----------



## xiaowenzu (Mar 20, 2007)

mdocod said:


> well.... the good news, is that after reading this thread, I am 100% convinced that my hand picked WWOS isn't completely obsolete yet!



Yep long live the LuxV.. well that is until the Surefire Crees come out.


----------



## robm (Mar 21, 2007)

> You are right, it is useful. LED museum and flashlightreviews.com are two of the most useful sites on flashlights. LED Museum's measurement is just as useful as the throw measurement at flashlightreviews.com. LED Museum has a foot candle meter so they measure the center of the beam at one foot, flashlightreviews.com has a lux meter so they measure the center of the beam at one meter.



That is quite interesting if that is the case (the mcd is a throw measurement), as that implies that the U2 should have more throw due to a 'brighter' hotspot. But the pictures above (#66) and the comments indicate that the P1D-CE has the brighter hotspot :thinking:

I guess it only goes to show...


----------



## Art Vandelay (Mar 21, 2007)

It is strange. The U2 measurements are almost identical on each and every level. This leads me to believe that the measurements on both sites are correct for the U2. The P1D-CE measurement, in contrast, is not even close between the two sites. The P1D-CE measurement on LED Museum is much closer to the flashlightreviews.com measurement of the Pre-CREE P1. That makes me think that one or both sites were inaccurate in the measurement of the P1D-CE.



robm said:


> That is quite interesting if that is the case (the mcd is a throw measurement), as that implies that the U2 should have more throw due to a 'brighter' hotspot. But the pictures above (#66) and the comments indicate that the P1D-CE has the brighter hotspot :thinking:
> 
> I guess it only goes to show...


----------



## chevrofreak (Mar 21, 2007)

Fenix P1D CE - high - Energizer E2 CR123a: 1556 - (est 111.14 lumens)
Dizzy's Surefire U2 - Level 6 - Rayovac RL123a lithium primary: 1572 (est 112.29 lumens)
4sevens Surefire U2 - Level 6 - Surefire SF123 lithium primary: 1261 (est 90.07 lumens)

From my own home built integrating sphere.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Mar 21, 2007)

Thank Chevofreak. Did you happen to measure the Lux at one meter for the P1D-CE, and U2. I'm curious to see if your throw numbers for the P1D-CE are closer to the the results on LED Museum or flashlightreviews.com.



chevrofreak said:


> Fenix P1D CE - high - Energizer E2 CR123a: 1556 - (est 111.14 lumens)
> Dizzy's Surefire U2 - Level 6 - Rayovac RL123a lithium primary: 1572 (est 112.29 lumens)
> 4sevens Surefire U2 - Level 6 - Surefire SF123 lithium primary: 1261 (est 90.07 lumens)
> 
> From my own home built integrating sphere.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Mar 21, 2007)

We need to stop using flashlightreviews results as gospel. They are fine for a particular light at a particular time. Those who have followed the development of led technology will note that a given led in a given light, might show different output compared to another light that is same brand, model. Repeated many times in this thread, lux V's flux has improved through the years, particularly with the use of good W bin lux V emiters, which Surefire is now using. A cree P4 at one amp to the led may equal the flux of a lux V driven at spec. A Seoul will have even more flux than a Cree at a given mA to led. There are always exception to the rule, call it Cree lottery, or Seoul lottery, or luxeon lottery, whatever. This thread has eveloved into a "my light is better than your light" thread.

Bill


----------



## chevrofreak (Mar 21, 2007)

Art Vandelay said:


> Thank Chevofreak. Did you happen to measure the Lux at one meter for the P1D-CE, and U2. I'm curious to see if your throw numbers for the P1D-CE are closer to the the results on LED Museum or flashlightreviews.com.



negative, sorry


----------



## Art Vandelay (Mar 21, 2007)

In addition to the results from flashlightreviews.com, we have access to testing results from Chevrofreak, The LED Museum, Quicksilver, and many others here at CPF. We can get the the test results (lux at 1 meter, etc.) from many sources. Having multiple sources of the same information does not diminish the importance of any of the sources, in fact the opposite is true. The more times a result can be independently replicated the better. Objective test results are helpful, but are not enough. The more qualitative attributes need to be reviewed as well. Look at all the movie, art, food, etc. critics there are, does it really make sense that one reviewer would be enough for all flashlight users?



Bullzeyebill said:


> We need to stop using flashlightreviews results as gospel. They are fine for a particular light at a particular time. Those who have followed the development of led technology will note that a given led in a given light, might show different output compared to another light that is same brand, model. Repeated many times in this thread, lux V's flux has improved through the years, particularly with the use of good W bin lux V emiters, which Surefire is now using. A cree P4 at one amp to the led may equal the flux of a lux V driven at spec. A Seoul will have even more flux than a Cree at a given mA to led. There are always exception to the rule, call it Cree lottery, or Seoul lottery, or luxeon lottery, whatever. This thread has eveloved into a "my light is better than your light" thread.
> 
> Bill


----------



## NeoteriX (Mar 22, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> Fenix P1D CE - high - Energizer E2 CR123a: 1556 - (est 111.14 lumens)
> Dizzy's Surefire U2 - Level 6 - Rayovac RL123a lithium primary: 1572 (est 112.29 lumens)
> 4sevens Surefire U2 - Level 6 - Surefire SF123 lithium primary: 1261 (est 90.07 lumens)
> 
> From my own home built integrating sphere.


 I'm uncertain as to what conclusion I'm supposed to infer from this information--It's pretty interesting that the two U2s have a somewhat significant difference in output. Is it because of modification? Variability in production/LED lottery? Product evolution? The difference in batteries?


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Mar 22, 2007)

NeoteriX said:


> I'm uncertain as to what conclusion I'm supposed to infer from this information--It's pretty interesting that the two U2s have a somewhat significant difference in output. Is it because of modification? Variability in production/LED lottery? Product evolution? The difference in batteries?


 If you care to read the whole thread, you'll notice that we mentioned that SF now receives better binned Lux 5 from Lumileds.


----------



## NeoteriX (Mar 22, 2007)

I did  However, it wasn't clear as some people argued it was a marketing change to better reflect the true output, others argued it was a production change. It seems that the jump in stated output is significantly more than the difference in the two U2s presented


----------



## Art Vandelay (Mar 22, 2007)

It could be both.

Maybe later they did upgrade the bins of the 5 watt Luxenons. It seems like Surefire would want to advertise an upgrade like that. If anybody has link to a press release from Surefire about the upgrade, could you give me a link to it? 

At the time of the change in the official lumen numbers, they made a strong case that you did not need to worry about whether you were buying one of the 65 lumen or a 100 lumen L4s, or buying an 80 lumen or 100 lumen U2s. The lights did not change, they were just changing the numbers to make them more accurate.

Here is an old post from somebody who would know about the updated measurement system at Surefire. http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/sho...693&postcount=9




NeoteriX said:


> I did  However, it wasn't clear as some people argued it was a marketing change to better reflect the true output, others argued it was a production change. It seems that the jump in stated output is significantly more than the difference in the two U2s presented


----------



## Lips (Mar 22, 2007)

.


*Chameleon* with *Seoul P4 * at 1200 mah vs *SF U2*












.


----------



## Lobo (Mar 22, 2007)

NeoteriX said:


> I'm uncertain as to what conclusion I'm supposed to infer from this information--It's pretty interesting that the two U2s have a somewhat significant difference in output. Is it because of modification? Variability in production/LED lottery? Product evolution? The difference in batteries?


 
Not sure that the difference is that big.
Another reason could be the Lux V short lifespann, so one of them could have been used heavily and the other one not so much. Just a guess.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Mar 31, 2007)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> If you care to read the whole thread, you'll notice that we mentioned that SF now receives better binned Lux 5 from Lumileds.


That appears true. It seems that the review of the U2 brightness at flashlightreviews.com was an anomaly because it's contrary to the conclusions of many CPF'ers experience and presented beamshots here, and that is... the U2 is brighter than the Fenix P1-DCE.


----------



## EV_007 (Mar 31, 2007)

The lumens listed for the U2 and SureFire lights in general are indeed understated. The lowest setting on the U2 is advertized at 3 lumens? Looks more like 10-15. It's not as "low" as I thought. Thus, I wouldn't doubt it if the U2 puts out 130+ lumens. To Fenix's credit, the fact a one cell light is being measured up against the two celled U2 says something. Or is it the CREE that says it all?

A CREE version of the U2 would be game over.  But I kind of like the warmer tinit of the LUX over the CREE or Seoul, for now.


----------



## FlashKat (Mar 31, 2007)

You also have to remember that Surefire is not driving the U2 at maximum output. They build and design their flashlights to be practical, tactical, and reliable. They have the technology to make a super high output just for show, but they don't have a reason to show off.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Apr 2, 2007)

Looking at runtime graphs of U2, I do believe that they are running close to max at level 6, higher than say the KL5, or KL4.

Bill


----------



## vhyper007 (Apr 2, 2007)

...all the reasoned comparisons and arguments are interesting.

The rest sound like men in the shower. There are those who take their shower, get dressed and leave. Then, there are those who take their shower seemingly forever and ever and ever and ev........ All just so one can say his flashlight is brighter than the guy who left first.

Then others compare their batteries....

just strikes me as kinda funny.

Regards,
Richard the Great


----------



## [email protected] Messenger (Apr 2, 2007)

vhyper007 said:


> ...all the reasoned comparisons and arguments are interesting.
> 
> The rest sound like men in the shower. There are those who take their shower, get dressed and leave. Then, there are those who take their shower seemingly forever and ever and ever and ev........ All just so one can say his flashlight is brighter than the guy who left first.
> 
> ...


 
Well said, I must say that this thread has been getting very repetitive (especially with a particular poster whom I will not mention that has no real basis for his arguments, as all evidence other than his claimed eye tests have pointed out that the newer technology puts out more usable light than the old).


----------



## elgarak (Apr 2, 2007)

I'm not really willing to participate in another "Fenix vs SF" (aka "Mine is brighter than yours").

So just a reminder. IIRC, except for the L5 (KL5 -> KX5) will not replace the Luxeon V's with Cree's. I think the reason have been stated in this thread already: Cree do not necessarily outperform Lux V. Though, as far as I know, require a redesign of the reflector/optics, which is a investment SF is not willing to do right now.


----------



## yellow (Apr 3, 2007)

> A CREE version of the U2 would be game over.  But I kind of like the warmer tinit of the LUX over the CREE or Seoul, for now.


yet another one :thinking:
Still wonder what lights You compare here?

No light till now with a Cree (2 Fenix, 2 town bike mods, 1 Cree Flupic mod) was other than white, the Fenix a bit on the green side, compared to all of my Luxeon lights and mods. Even any beamshot in here showed a more white/slight yellow tint and usually the Crees were criticized for that.
The SSC are said to be on the blue side


----------



## Luna (Apr 3, 2007)

FlashKat said:


> You also have to remember that Surefire is not driving the U2 at maximum output




Considering I measured .866A at level 6, I'd have to say they are. That said, driven at 1.25A with a Wbin is nice but not IMHO worth the loss of runtime.

Once eyes adapt, you can even get by with less.


----------



## Luna (Apr 3, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



Outdoors Fanatic said:


> The first runs of U2s were rated at mere 65 lumens by SureFire. That's the sample Quickbeam had when wrote the review. The newer runs come with LuxV with higher Bins. That's why SF now guarantees a minimum of 100 lumens instead of 65. Therefore, your data is obsolete.




Wasn't the first run 100lumens, downgraded to 80lumens on the box, then restored to 100lumens?


----------



## xiaowenzu (May 1, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



Luna said:


> Wasn't the first run 100lumens, downgraded to 80lumens on the box, then restored to 100lumens?



Whatever it was, I know that ALL Surefire U2 are rated at 100 Lumens today - ie. REAL Surefire Lumens... however many people have done tests and conclude that Surefire UNDER-RATES their lights. So a 100 Lumen U2 can be anywhere from 100-120 lumens.

Just remember the rule: if it's made by Chinese companies (Fenix, Lumapower, Huntlight, Jetbeam, etc, etc) you must* subtract* 20% from their lumen rating to get the true lumens. Because all Chinese maker exaggerate their specifications. For instance a '140Lumen' Chinese light on Kai domain or dealextreme, is really only 112 Lumens.


----------



## chevrofreak (May 1, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



xiaowenzu said:


> Whatever it was, I know that ALL Surefire U2 are rated at 100 Lumens today - ie. REAL Surefire Lumens... however many people have done tests and conclude that Surefire UNDER-RATES their lights. So a 100 Lumen U2 can be anywhere from 100-120 lumens.
> 
> Just remember the rule: if it's made by Chinese companies (Fenix, Lumapower, Huntlight, Jetbeam, etc, etc) you must* subtract* 20% from their lumen rating to get the true lumens. Because all Chinese maker exaggerate their specifications. For instance a '140Lumen' Chinese light on Kai domain or dealextreme, is really only 112 Lumens.



The 140 lumens claimed by Huntlight for the FT01 XR-E was almost dead on.

Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 5 - AW High Current 750mAh RCR123: 1993 - (est 142.36 lumens)
Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 5 - Energizer E2 CR123a: 1928 - (est 137.71 lumens)


----------



## xiaowenzu (May 1, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



chevrofreak said:


> The 140 lumens claimed by Huntlight for the FT01 XR-E was almost dead on.



I guess that's an exception rather than the rule. As always, I say it's best to be safe than sorry..... always doubt Chinese products unless they can proof themselves in independent tests. 

Also remember products differ, even the same model... there are always inconsistency issues with Chinese goods. Just because a single item measures 'high lumens' doesn't mean the others will. 

P.s another Chinese trick they use is when they submit their products to well-known sites for evaluating. The Chinese companies are known to select their 'special-luxeon-lottery winners' and give them to sites such as _flashlightreviews_ and _ledmuseum_ to test it. Therefore the results are NOT indicative of their complete product lines. 

My point is just beware when purchasing Chinese goods.


----------



## chevrofreak (May 1, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



xiaowenzu said:


> I guess that's an exception rather than the rule. As always, I say it's best to be safe than sorry..... always doubt Chinese products unless they can proof themselves in independent tests.
> 
> Also remember products differ, even the same model... there are always inconsistency issues. Just because a single item measures 'high lumens' doesn't mean the others will.
> 
> ...



Another exception would be the Fenix L0D CE which was rated 50/20/7.5 and by my measurements was:

Fenix L0D CE - high - Energizer E2 lithium: 895 (est 63.93 lumens)
Fenix L0D CE - high - Duracell coppertop: 772 (est 55.14 lumens)
Fenix L0D CE - high - Sanyo HR-4U 900mAh Ni-MH: 754 (est 53.86 lumens)

Fenix L0D CE - medium (primary) - Energizer E2 lithium: 291 (est 20.79 lumens)
Fenix L0D CE - medium (primary) - Duracell coppertop: 268 (est 19.14 lumens)
Fenix L0D CE - medium (primary) - Sanyo HR-4U 900mAh Ni-MH: 262 (est 18.71 lumens)

Fenix L0D CE - low - Energizer E2 lithium: 127 (est 9.07 lumens)
Fenix L0D CE - low - Sanyo HR-4U 900mAh Ni-MH: 114 (est 8.14 lumens)
Fenix L0D CE - low - Duracell coppertop: 106 (est 7.57 lumens)

I know that some of them may cherry pick the best product to send for testing, but from what we've seen of the XR-E lights there really isn't much output difference between the best and worst of the same model.

I'm fairly certain that neither JSBurly's nor Fenix Store cherry pick the lights that they send to me for testing.


----------



## WadeF (May 1, 2007)

How about the U2 vs. the Fenix PD3-CE? Maybe a more fair comparision since both use 2 cells? The PD3-CE is also cheaper than the PD1-CE.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Aug 27, 2007)

I guess the 'old' Luxeon V has still got plenty of light left in them (no pun intended) :twothumbs


----------



## Echo63 (Aug 27, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



Andrew Nik said:


> In my measurement, U2 have equal brightness with P1D CE, but U2 provide more useful, comfortable beam:
> (distance 25 meters; WB set at Sun light)



by the looks of it, your U2 has a slightly greenish tint like mine


----------



## xiaowenzu (Aug 27, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



Echo63 said:


> by the looks of it, your U2 has a slightly greenish tint like mine


As you can see, towards the end of the hall, the P1DCE has that typical cree 'dark ring' looks more blue in real life, whilst the U2's beam is whitish smooth... it's just that digital camera's aren't that good as conveying colors and the human eye. The U2 is warm white in real life.


----------



## Windscale (Aug 27, 2007)

Having used SF for many years (since the days of the original 6P incan), I can say that when it comes to brightness, SFs are hard to beat. But what got me to buying other makes was that SFs do suck batteries. Their LEDs are no exceptions. And they don't like to follow market trends. For example, others have moved onto lights using 18650s whilst some SF couldn't even fit 17670s. They have good machinery, advanced technology.

So what, even if the U2 is brighter than the P1D CE. How about runtime? How many spare batts is one supposed to carry with him on a day out? But having said this, SFs are, no doubt, reliable lights, and I do carry one on extended outings, most likely my 6P with KL3 running happily on 17670, which gives me quite respectable runtime but at the expense of reduced brightness. The light which gets most used would be the P3D CE also running on 17670.

So I am not an SF basher. I use them both. A good light is a good light. Especially on a bad night!


----------



## xiaowenzu (Aug 27, 2007)

Windscale said:


> SFs are hard to beat. But what got me to buying other makes was that SFs do suck batteries. Their LEDs are no exceptions.


 
Those New Surefire Crees have pretty long runtimes.. for instance the E2L outdoorsman can run 14 hours, yes, you heard that right. 14hrs! at 45 lumens. :thumbsup:


----------



## Windscale (Aug 27, 2007)

xiaowenzu said:


> Those New Surefire Crees have pretty long runtimes.. for instance the E2L outdoorsman can run 14 hours, yes, you heard that right. 14hrs! at 45 lumens. :thumbsup:


 
Yes, you are right. But only 45 lumens. It would have been a big deal if it was at least 65 lumens.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Aug 27, 2007)

Windscale said:


> Yes, you are right. But only 45 lumens. It would have been a big deal if it was at least 65 lumens.


45Lumens is plenty for most tasks, for instance, I use my Novatac on medium which is about 10 lumens, for searching things around the house.


----------



## robm (Aug 27, 2007)

xiaowenzu said:


> Those New Surefire Crees have pretty long runtimes.. for instance the E2L outdoorsman can run 14 hours, yes, you heard that right. 14hrs! at 45 lumens. :thumbsup:



Is that a full 14 hours at 45 lumens, or does it start at 45, then drop out of regulation after a few hours?


----------



## Patriot (Aug 27, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



Andrew Nik said:


> In my measurement, U2 have equal brightness with P1D CE, but U2 provide more useful, comfortable beam:
> (distance 25 meters; WB set at Sun light)


 
I have to admit right of the bat that I've only read about a 1/3 of this thread. But considering the title of the thread, these pictures cracked me up. If the exposure was the same during these two photos I'm looking at the P1D CE producing noticably more light than the U2. Does anyone else see this?...look at the spill light.

I'd have to say that my P1D CE is noticably brighter than my U2 at level six.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Aug 27, 2007)

If my memory serves me right the E2L-Cree has run for 9 hours at full output based on posted runtimes. Run time will be longer with three CR123's (the KX2 head on a three cell body).

Bill


----------



## WadeF (Aug 27, 2007)

*Re: My Surefire U2 (100 Lumen) brighter than Fenix P1dce '135' Lumens!*



Patriot36 said:


> I have to admit right of the bat that I've only read about a 1/3 of this thread. But considering the title of the thread, these pictures cracked me up. If the exposure was the same during these two photos I'm looking at the P1D CE producing noticably more light than the U2. Does anyone else see this?...look at the spill light.
> 
> I'd have to say that my P1D CE is noticably brighter than my U2 at level six.


 
Yeah this whole topic is a laugh. Many people have shown proof that the P1D-CE is putting out more light, yet someone doesn't want to admit that given the facts.  The U2 does have a more even and larger hot spot, but the P1D-CE has more light in the spill and a wider spill. Not only do the beam shots show the P1D-CE is putting out more light, but so do the #'s stated by several review sites, etc.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Aug 27, 2007)

It appears that even though the P1-DCE is produces _slightly_ more output on paper, the U2 beam has further throw and a larger, brighter hotspot, which makes it brighter in practical use, and IMO that's the most important measure - the naked eye. For instance, if one were to look at the previous U2 beamshot... the left side wall is lit up further down the hall, whereas the P1DCE is becoming darker. Not to mention there are quite noticable 'dark ring' patches, in the P1DCE beamshot, which is inherent of the reflector design plus Cree combination. :shakehead

I guess the U2's superiority in practical output light, comes down to the implementation of the beam, the reflector design and inherent 'wall of light' quality of the *Surefire* LUx V leds. It's certainly a Surefire combination. 



robm said:


> Is that a full 14 hours at 45 lumens, or does it start at 45, then drop out of regulation after a few hours?


 
That's full regulation, and depending of brands of cells you can get anywhere from 9-13 hours, followed by a graceful drop in brightness to the lower levels.


----------



## daveman (Aug 27, 2007)

Will the moderators come in here and ban this Xiawenzu troll? Pretty much everybody is reading his posts for laughs, but the garbage he's spewing out COULD MISLEAD MANY NEW FLASHAHOLICS INTO WASTING MONEY ON AN UNWANTED LIGHT.


----------



## WadeF (Aug 28, 2007)

daveman said:


> Will the moderators come in here and ban this Xiawenzu troll? Pretty much everybody is reading his posts for laughs, but the garbage he's spewing out COULD MISLEAD MANY NEW FLASHAHOLICS INTO WASTING MONEY ON AN UNWANTED LIGHT.


 
+1


----------



## robm (Aug 28, 2007)

> That's full regulation, and depending of brands of cells you can get anywhere from 9-13 hours, followed by a graceful drop in brightness to the lower levels.



So not actually 14 hours at 45 lumens then, which may have been a slight exaggeration (or different way of measuring)?
In fact a bit like the Fenix being rated at 135, but actually being comparable to a 100 lumen rated Surefire?

Anyone else spot the irony here?


----------



## xiaowenzu (Aug 28, 2007)

robm said:


> So not actually 14 hours at 45 lumens then, which may have been a slight exaggeration (or different way of measuring)?


 Nope, Surefire gives a runtime of 14 hrs *TOTAL, *which includes approximately 9+ at full brightness followed by many hours at lower lumens. IMO, it's a very conservative rating from Surefire, which is no surprise to us CPF'ers - they're an honest company, unlike some. :twothumbs


----------



## robm (Aug 28, 2007)

Thanks for the clarification.
I was just checking, as your original post stated:

_yes, you heard that right. 14hrs! *at* 45 lumens._

which seemed a bit too good to be true (and was)


----------



## xiaowenzu (Aug 28, 2007)

robm said:


> Thanks for the clarification.
> I was just checking, as your original post stated:
> 
> _yes, you heard that right. 14hrs! *at* 45 lumens._
> ...


 
Yep, 14 hrs at 45 lumens with regulated brightness from about 9-10 hours.. sorry if my english wasn't too good


----------



## dano (Aug 28, 2007)

I have received 14 email notifications about the back and forth bickering in this thread.

It's run its course.
Closed.


----------

