paulr said:
Enrique is right, I don't own an Ion (yet). I saw one at a CPF get-together and it was very nice. I believe the photo I'm thinking of was not taken by Enrique. It showed an n Al bronze Ion next to one of tvodrd's lights, probably a CR2-II (I don't have the photo url handy). Of course any tvodrd light is an extremely tough act to follow however it seemed to me that the knurls on the Ion just didn't look as precise. I'm thinking now that I was in error calling that the "finish" but I'm not expert at this metalworking stuff. This photo was one of the factors that currently makes me favor an HA or Ti version of the Ion over the Al Bronze (this is more a matter of the color than the knurling though, I especially like the red HA).
I have to say I'm also (slightly) disturbed by the issue of LED centering as discussed in another thread. This was also a problem with the Nichia emitters in the $15 (at the time) CMG Ultra-G and people grumbled about it slightly in that light. But the Ultra-G was a "tool" light (like a Casio G-Shock wristwatch) and users couldn't expect too much fuss over slight cosmetic imperfections. A Ti Ion is almost 20x as expensive as an Ultra-G and people don't buy it purely for its functionality. Their reasons for buying it are partly in common with the reasons why people buy Rolexes, and their expectations are set accordingly. Cosmetic issues matter. A Rolex with a serious cosmetic blemish is defective even if it functions properly as a timepiece. The Ion isn't jewelry and is 1/10th the price of a Rolex, but I'd still feel better about the Ion if LED centering problems were correctable in some way.
For people that have an obsession with perfection, like the white wall aficionados, the tint police, and such, a centered emitter would be important. I would have to agree, in the price range, one would expect a centered emitter.
One would have to go back to the comments of an infamous CPF'er, Peter Gransee, and understand that a flashlight for most people is a tool. Something designed to be used. Not set on a shelf as a trophy, or on one's person, like a piece of jewelry. I seem to recall numberous posts about these things being intended for keychains and the like, not something you'd adorn the Queen with. Of course, those ARC4+ lights had an entire pile of issues in their own right, that really shouldn't have been there, in a light of it's price range. Ridges in reflector, dust inside, lots of aluminum shavings in some lights, farkle, tubes that were ground down on grinding wheels at angles (not even flat), the infamous button problems, click deals, lots of pinholes in the HAIII, and a whole host of other issues.
To be fair, I would have to say, wiggling around the emitter in this reflector results in *very* little change in the output beam, even when looking at it with an obsession on a white wall. This is due to the reflector not really doing optical focusing, and the LED not being as much of a point source as the Luxeon.
Remember, this CREE device has a much larger source size than the LumiLEDs part, plus the reflector is just redirecting light (very broad cone), not focusing it.
Thus, technically, centering has little effect on Endeavor's light-from a functional standpoint...Short for the profectionists that need everything absolutely perfect.
Quite honestly, after all is said and done, I'd have to say that even the highly touted Larry light fell short in a few areas....hopefully if someone picks it up, they will figure out how to square those things away, and work out the manufacturing issues of the design.
On to the wall bounce. A person will in fact see more localized reflected light when bouncing a focused beam off a wall. Where, even with the same power, a diffuse beam (flood), will certainly look dimmer for reflected light.
A lot of newbies don't comprehend things like that.
The only real way to judge the total lumens with accuracy, would be with an integrating sphere. Thats why they are used for lumen testing.
Now, if a person had a square room, that was all painted with white, and a white floor the comparision would be alot more accurate.
A fairly far flung comparsion could be done if a light meter was taken all over the room, and all the readings were added up, including the nooks and crannies, as a flood beam would do a better job of lighting everything up off a wall. A white corner isn't that great of a method to use. The reason why, is it acts more like a retro-reflector. Upon immediate glancing around a room, one would quickly judge it to be brighter. But, if you were to go look, you'd noticed everything in the room is filled in with light better. A simultaneous comparison, off two corners would work even worse yet. You'd have the very diffuse source filling in areas all over the room, where the spot light would essentially cast back more of a flood beam.
Thats why they use an integrating sphere, so that it keeps bouncing the light all over the sphere, and causes it to be uniformly lit inside. Anytime it isn't evenly lit, say like not having a highly reflective coating inside, results in errors in your measurements.
Another error that often creeps in, especially with LEDs, is where a person compares LEDs with different tints. LED spectrums even cause havoc with cheap light meters, like the LM631, and will often give you erronous readings. They work for a rough comparision, but they do have errors from meter to meter, especially when the spectral content is changed.
Then there is the human eye and age. A young fella, has a very clear lens and gel in his eye. By the time you hit 40, the lens is already turning brown. As such, the bluish end of the spectrum starts becoming attenuated. What appearred as a nice white at 16, 4500K, to appear the same at age 40, takes 5500-6500K to look the same. Thus a 16 year old would say, for example that a WO is brighter than an XO bin, at the same lumens. But an older gent might tell you on no uncertain terms, that the XO is definitely alot brighter than the WO, since it looks more white to him.
This quickly spins off into the whole field of color science, where plenty of scientist types spend their whole life...
So, to even start upon doing a decent comparision, the LED tint would also have to be matched. But even with two emitters from the XO bin, their actual spectral outputs can be quite different. I've seen LumiLEDs devices that have their blue spike at 430nm, and with another device having a blue spike at 480nm, yet they both are from the XO bin. It is interesting, how it affects the color rendering, but I'll save that for another time.
Anyhow, thats my take on things. Unfortunately, I haven't seen a production version of the CR2 Ion myself, but did get to spend time with one of the prototypes, which I really liked alot. I'll have to see about getting one of the production versions, as I understand there were a number of improvements from the prototype I got to test-which I was pretty pleased with already.
It will be really interesting to seen future versions, and new lights that Endeavor takes on in the future. IMHO, a really good first flashlight, few people hit the mark as high as Endeavor did with this, his first light. For some, it took them years to get to the same point, and others still haven't attained it yet.
Hopefully, Endeavor takes various comments that have been made, to heart, gaining a fuller understanding of what customers really want, and will utilize this experience in his next light.
If you're looking for throw, ya just gotta go---to some other light! If you're looking for a really nice, high quality carrier that you'll be proud to show and use, this is your ticket! :rock: 
