Are we overly obsess about lumen numbers?

[Centropolis]

I've been reading this forum for about a month now and certainly learned a lot about flashlights and batteries from here.

I am in no way an expert in flashlight like many of you but has the technology of flashlight advanced to a point where the only improvements are in how bright the new LEDs can produce and how many more minutes can we run off an AA battery?

Sometimes, I think we get overly excited about the fact that new lights are producing over 200 lumens and we don't really think about if we'll need 200 lumens on a regular basis. I mean it's definitely cool to wow my friends at camping with a really bright light but other than that, I rarely need to see what's on the other side of the lake 500 feet across the water.

I am sure I am also guilty of this. I was looking for a cheap drop-in to upgrade my perfectly fine G2L at 80 lumens. I've played around with it at night outside and it's very bright for what I need it for. And when the camping season starts, I am sure in almost complete darkness around camping parks, it'll seem even brighter. Sure, it doesn't strobe and what will I really use it for? Scare off bears? I actually think that the strobe will entice bears to attack me!

So I put this question out to you all, are we overly obsessed about more lumens? The more the better?

 

[Theatre Booth Guy]

I'm much more concerned about having a proper low than a burning high. It's nice to keep the night vision preserved.

 

[Illum]

yes, unfortunately thats the heading of the forum, and that of better LEDs, and no its not "everyone":green::mecry::shakehead:candle:

 

[kramer5150]

My thoughts...
In any gear-related hobby there are always going to be those people who emphasize spec sheets and base their purchases heavily on that. If that makes them happy, then I am all for it. Manufacturers know this and pump their spec ratings to appeal to this market segment. So... while many think Lumens ratings are meaningless, others will disagree. Its up to the consumer to figure out which camp they fall into and make the right choices.

It is fun though... watching emitter manufacturers evolve bins and squeeze out more and more light using less power from month to month. Some day were going to get 100L with 100mah current draw and no heat generated.

I only really "need" 70-100L outdoors / at work and 20-40L indoors. IMHO its more important to pick a light that controls the Lumens and is able to project a beam/flood pattern that suits the preferences of the user for the job at hand.

 

[easilyled]

It depends what you mean by obsess.

I think if there are 2 lights available, both of the same quality in
fit & finish, both with a low-low and a variable output but light X
can produce a higher max. output at the same runtime compared
with light Y, then most of us (if not all of us) would prefer light X.

In situations not as clearcut as the above, many other factors come
into play.

I think those who are new to using lights are more likely to plump
for high output for the novelty value. Its nice to be able to show off
and I'm still culpable of wanting to do that myself.

However I will not sacrifice fit and finish for high output. Reliability for
me must come first.

 

[bspofford]

Our eyes have a range of light sensitivity in the neighborhood of 100,000 fold. The rods are more sensitive to low levels of light but provide only black and white vision. Many nocturnal animals have a tapedium behind the retina that reflects light back through the rods making their vision even more sensitive. This is the orange or green glow we get from their eyes when she shine our lights on them. We do not have this anatomic advantage, and we are not very good noctural creatures. Color vision via our rods requires much higher levels of light, and we and our videocameras see much better during the day.

It is our human nature to want to fly higher and faster than birds, swim deeper and faster than fish, run or drive faster than any cheetah, and to see better at night than an owl. I want the sun in my hand!

 

[RecycledElectron]

I like a light with a wide range of ability and good efficiency. A low low and a high high with a middle level or two. My favorites for the moment are the Rexlight 2.1 build 0002 and the Dereelight 3SD module in a Xtar host. With the Olight T20 as an honorable mention. I still EDC it instead of the Xtar because it's smaller. The 3SD is a great camping light, though. 240 lumens is comforting when you hear that bear growling.

At the high end we like to be able to turn the night into daylight. At the low end, we need a low that doesn't disturb night vision too much, with a couple of levels that will be probably used most in between.

It's the ability of a light to turn the night into daylight that sells to most, though. So that's what's marketed. In just the last year I've seen efficiencies skyrocket. Now, 350 ma at the emitter may get you 120 lumen, where it before only got you 60 or 70. Greater light generation efficiency yields smaller, brighter lights. It's great!

 

[Patriot]

I mostly feel the same way as easilyled. I'm not obsessed but one of the features that I'm interested in is max output.

Even as a whole I don't think that CPFers are obsessed either. Many lights have been released that were ultra-bright or at least near the top of the pile for their format but often don't take hold because they're lacking something else. An example would be that the low wasn't low enough or the run-time on medium was poor indicating an issue with the circuit, as recently seen on the newest Jetbeam. Some people wont purchase the brightest light in it's class because it's a reverse clicky. So yeah brighter is great as long as it has the other characteristics that people also want. If the brighter light is lacking in other areas, people often wont purchase it.

I've only been posting here a little over a year but reading for a couple of years before that. When I look at the archive threads nothing has really changed other than new products being released more frequently. Brightness has always been an issue with enthusiasts but never the only issue, just like how it is today.

 

[BabyDoc]

I agree that in most cases, more lumens sell more lights, other features being the same. Personally, I would prefer more emphasis be placed on better color rendition from the LED lights we use, even if it meant a loss of some lumens. However, I know I am in the minority around here. In the medical field, acurate color rendition is not only desirable, it is manditory. Elsewhere, people tend to tolerate the washed out or blue tinted world that most LED's seem to alter.

 

[bspofford]

I'm a surgeon, and I know that the color of tissue is critical in the operating room. Good color rendition requires both the proper light spectrum and brightness. I've often had problems with the old fluorescent lights in emergency rooms making patient's look green. But even "daylight" color spectrum light at very low levels requires that we use our rods, and vision is reduced to black and white. Our color vision is dependent on more than the color spectrum of light, and we need bright light so we can use our cones.

 

[Gunner12]

For me, I don't think I'm overly obsessed about lumen numbers. I'm only compelled to upgrade when there is 30% or more increase in output, and that is only for easy mods. Harder ones I'd want at least 50% increase in output.

It's fun to walk around in the dark(at home) with the Mag85 in hand. Overkill, yes, but definitely fun.

I would like to have both the ability to have a super powerful high and a low low, but that seems unlikely right now.

For the market though, higher number almost always sells more.

 

[pbs357]

Lumen numbers is an easy thing to obsess about, since it's something that can be measured, and easy to observe. That's why the really bright lights give the "ooh" and "ah" factor. I've been thinking about this topic recently myself. As an urban flashaholic I recharge often and use my lights in momentary or sessions of no more than 10 minutes at a time. I spent some time in a rural area at my folk's place, and was really impressed at how bright my NDI (130 torch lumens) was, especially for it's size. Upon lighting up the Q5 drop in's I thought to myself that the lumen quest may be over for a while, especially since I do not use them for my job, etc. 200 lumens from an AA battery would certainly be a must-have if they made it, but not for me unless it had at least 3 other modes below it.

 

[lightsandknives]

I was guilty of falling into the "gotta have more lumens" category when I first got into lights. Very cool to impress your friends with the "wow" factor! Once all my friends and family had seen them, it really became more about what works for me.

I have quite a few lights now and I have yet to find the perfect one. For up close, I like a very floody light. For that reason, a CR2 ion is always in my pocket and my Zebralight H50 is close by when I need two hands! I love the low low on it, especially with night adapted eyes. 12 lumens is more than I prefer for a low. Give me 2 lumens at most and I really like my HDS basic with the .3 lumen setting.

But, outside for fun, I still like to turn night into day! I really like my Fenix T1, my modded Mags, etc.

That's the fun of buying more torches......the quest for the ultimate light!

 

[Oddjob]

It's in our nature to want to have more even if its just knowing its available. Why do automakers make cars that go way above the speed limit. Why do we drive above the speed limit. Would anyone here buy a car that only goes 60 or 70 mph max? If that extra little bit out of something is available even if it is barely perceptible, then many of us will want it. As long as you are having fun and your lights make you happy, then there is no need to question it. If 40 lumens does it for you, great. If you need 150 lumens, great as well. Whatever floats your boat I always say.:thumbsup:

 

[nerdgineer]

Once you have enough lights, which I think is essentially all of us, you need a reason to buy another one. It needs to stand out from what you already have to justify (or just give you an excuse) to buy it. Smaller, runs longer, more features, on sale (cheaper) or....BRIGHTER. It helps justify the fact that you want something new, that's all.

Also, there's the competitive "mine's brighter than yours" guy thing that's wired into some of us...

 

[JB5]

I am fairly new to higher end flashlights. I bought my Arc-P a year ago for my key chain mostly because everything I heard was how tough it was. and at 9lums bright enough for most daily tasks and fits nice on my keychain. Not disappointed at all. I recently got a L2d Q5. While I will hardly ever use the 180 lum turbo I like the fact that it is there if I do need it. There have been a few instances where I sure could of used it. Most of the time it will be on the lower settings. Plus I really like the look and feel of it and if all I hear is true its also a tough light. Will I buy a brighter light. Probably not for a while as I am not quite a flashlightaholic,,,Yet

 

[cave dave]

I think it is pretty common for some hobbyists to over focus on specs, especially ones that can be easily measured and compared (or spun to the manufactures advantage)

In bicycles there is huge emphasis on weight. Often at the expense of things like handling, versatility and comfort. You can measure weight but its hard to measure the other factors which can be much more important in my mind.

You would think weight is a real value too but the marketing folks spin the numbers just like they do with lumen values. Sometimes claiming a bike is 19lbs when in reality its >21 lbs. I remember when suspension forks first got big the real weights were like a pound over claimed weights. Tires are all much narrower than claimed as well. This way my so called 25 mm tire is lighter than your 25mm tire. (because its actually smaller)

But forums like this one are a great way to cut through the BS! Go CPF!
:twothumbs

 

[Hodsta]

It depends what you mean by obsess.

I think if there are 2 lights available, both of the same quality in
fit & finish, both with a low-low and a variable output but light X
can produce a higher max. output at the same runtime compared
with light Y, then most of us (if not all of us) would prefer light X.

In situations not as clearcut as the above, many other factors come
into play.

I think those who are new to using lights are more likely to plump
for high output for the novelty value. Its nice to be able to show off
and I'm still culpable of wanting to do that myself.

However I will not sacrifice fit and finish for high output. Reliability for
me must come first.

My thoughts exactly.

Quality, Fit, Finish, Beamshape, my personal preference for colour rendition and the lights ability to fulfil my need for different outputs for different purposes are key. As far as the lights that I own go the McGs win out for quality and beamshape and the modded HDS wins out for flexibility.

When someone makes a light of McG quality with reliable and variable output from 0.1 - kilolumens I will find another hobby

 

[Curious_character]

I'd be more interested in lumens if I was interested in lighting up a room, since all it tells you is the total light output. But I'm not. More often, I'm interested in seeing how far away I can light up and identify an object, and the lumen value doesn't tell me that. So I look more closely at the lux at one meter (candelas of illuminance), which determines "throw".

So far I've done run time graphs of 38 combinations of lights/reflectors/batteries, from single AAA pocket lights to two-CR123A throwers. Admittedly, I've concentrated on relatively high-lux lights, and all were tested on their highest output mode. But one result is interesting: the lux values at one meter cover a 140:1 range (~200 - 28,000). But the lumen values cover less than a 5:1 range (~42 - just under 200). This isn't any big surprise, but emphasizes the point that the lumen value isn't much of an indicator of how far away you can see something with your light.

One other factor that makes lumen values nearly worthless is that so many people simply take as fact the lumen values quoted by manufacturers. Manufacturers know that people do this, and realize it means they can sell a lot more lights simply by printing bigger lumen numbers on their advertising. So they do. If it's foolish to obsess over lumen values, it's more foolish yet to obsess over fictitious lumen values -- and that's just what a lot of people do.

c_c

 

[yaesumofo]

Absolutely. especially considering that 99% of the users out here have NO WAY of measuring LUMENs.

IMHO It should be more about how does the beam look? color rendition, tint, smoothness in the transition from hot spot to side spill,

Most of the time we are relying on blind trust.

How does the beam look to you? Does it work well on white walls? WHO CARES? I don't. Does it work outside? can you see a badguy in the bushes?
Sure I like to know the basic spec. But the reality of the light is much more important.
For example I recently bought a E1B. This is a 80 Lumen spec'ed light.
The reality is that my E1B is as bright or brighter than so many of my single cell flashlights I am constantly amazed.
So as a spec? ok it is an ok place to start. But to fight for every lumen and try to extract every lumen I can out of a given system? Nope I don't care that much.
I want to know how does it look? That is about it.
Yaesumofo