hi matrixshaman,
oh i must have missed the sos n strobe details. yes.. but there are lots of stuffs i didnt understand from there. like:
User adjustable mode - default at 50%. Adjustable to 0.2% (8 seconds) or 100% (8 seconds) with memory <-- what is the 8 seconds?
When programming the light, output begins at 50%. If you move into P2, the output will gradually "sweep" from 50% to 100% over the course of 8 seconds. you can thaen interrupt this by switching out of P2, and that output will "stick". Likewise, sweeping from 50% to 0% takes 8 seconds. Sweeping across the entire range from 0.2% to 100% takes 16 seconds.
When programming my modes in my light, I wanted my highest setting to be about 75% (as that is IMO the optimum tradeoff point between brightness and runtime) so instead of trying to look at the brightness and guess at the output, I actually simply waited 4 seconds to know when to stop and save the setting.
IMO the biggest weakenss of the LF2 series is that this sweeping process is linear -- ie, every second corresponds to an incease or decrease of ~6.25% in output. However, the way our eyes perceive brightness changes is logarithmic, meaning on the "low" end of the brightness range, that rate of sweeping is too fast, and on the high end it's way too slow (Everything between 50% and 100% is very difficult to distinguish just by looking at it). IMO the prorgamming would be a lot better off if they programmed in a logarithmic curve to match the way our eye sensitivity works.
The way you adjust the brightness in programming mode (I believe 6 switching cycles) is to move the light into position two.
And i still don't know whether it could light up as long as the L0D when put at same highest setting as the L0D and throw as far.
I have studied those graphs in detail and concluded that efficiency between the two (assuming the same battery type) is close to the same -- so if you set the runtime to similar output, you'll get similar runtime. However, making a direct comparison is difficult because the LF2 is regulated, and the fenix L0D is not (it gradually declines in otuput, with the voltage curve of the battery). This means if you were to compare the L0D to the LF2x and they were to start out at the same setting, runtime to 50% would be longer on the L0D, but that's simply because output/power consumption is continually decreasing on the L0D.
Check out the link in my sig for more info comparing the current consumption of the LF2s if you're interested, as well as links to tons of over relevant threads on the LF2s.
