Some of you out there may remember me. 
From around 2008 until 2016, I used to post a lot of light reviews here. My main goal was always objective comparative testing of lights. This meant heavily standardized testing, with output, beam distance, beamshots and runtime measures for multiple comparable lights posted within the tables and charts of my individual reviews.
My reviews quickly became popular, and manufacturers soon began sending me their lights to review. By the time I wound down my review testing in 2016, I had reviewed nearly 600 flashlights.
So why did I stop, and why am I making a (limited) return?
The answer to the first part is a combination of life getting in the way, and waning interest.
As was likely obvious from my reviews, I have research background. As a successful professional in my own field, my work responsibilities continued to expand to the point where I had little free time left anymore - and couldn't handle the flood of requests I was getting.
I was also getting less satisfaction from my reviewing hobby. By ~2015, I had found the pace of innovation in flashlight design and performance had really slowed down. Through most of my time as a reviewer, overall LED emitter output was easily doubling every 12-18 months (Moore's law in action, I guess). And those early years saw huge explosions in innovative circuit designs - with increasingly efficient circuits and tons of specialty modes - plus huge experimentation in user interfaces (e.g., visually-linear ramping outputs, intuitive magnetic control rings, etc.). And improvements in beam patterns too - as a result of diverse designs and layouts in terms of emitters, reflectors, optics, etc. But by ~2015, it seemed like portable LED technology had pretty much fully matured, without the previous leaps in performance or design. An endless variety of me-too lights crossed my desk that didn't offer anything significant over what had come before.
Even worse, I was seeing increasingly the loss of useful features and designs, as manufacturers reverted to simpler and cheaper circuits (but with increasingly rakish physical designs, to distract you from the lack of substance). For example, formerly "hidden" modes were increasingly showing up in main sequences or too easily accessed (i.e., you could far too easily "tactically strobe" yourself now). The very useful "moonlight" modes for dark-adapted eyes were disappearing. And visually-linear ramps were turning into a joke with speeds so high that you could barely access a couple of discrete levels, etc.
Some of the other key drivers for my reviews had also diminished over time. I have always been singly focused on the truth when it comes to reviewing - by providing accurate, independent testing. While ANSI FL-1 standards were far from perfect, their widespread adoption at least helped to level the playing field in terms of reported specs - assuming makers were accurately representing their lights (which, while far from perfect, did improve over time and were fairly accurate by that point). Moreover, many other reviewers had joined the field, and started producing their own detailed reviews, so I felt the need for my own personal reviews had lessened somewhat - there were plenty of others out there to pick up the torch (pun intended).
That said, there were also a lot of reviewers who focused more on photography than rigorous comparative testing. Intentional or not, those glitzy reviews seemed to be serving more as free marketing tools for makers. I don't mean to cast shade on my fellow reviewers here - I believe the vast majority were simply focused on producing the highest quality reviews possible, and they had more photographic experience/skills than scientific. But the end result was a not-so-subtle shift of reviews being used are marketing tools, which I found frustrating.
So what brought me back?
I've lurked a little over the intervening years, to see what was new and emerging. A few innovations caught my eye, but nothing to really draw me back. In particular, emitter efficiency appears to have barely budged over the intervening years. Then I noticed how all the manufacturers had begun to produce 1x21700 lights.
I'll explain my interest in this battery format more on my new site (more about that in a moment). But the short version is that this small increase in size allows a lot more capacity to be stored in there. While that has obvious runtime advantages, the key point is what it means in terms of battery energy density - and thus how hard you can safely drive an emitter. Simply put, 21700 hits a sweet spot with standard ICR chemistry that can safely sustain higher discharge rates, allowing you drive an emitter much harder (at least for short periods of time).
Moreover, most major manufacturers are now bundling lights with branded 21700 batteries included. And these batteries often feature built-in charging capabilities through ubiquitous USB-C port connectors on the battery themselves, or through the lights. So, stand-alone battery chargers were no longer required, which is a real boon for getting these lights in the hands of non-flashaholics.
So, we now have the conditions to produce the ultimate holy grail of EDC flashlight technology - a reasonably compact light, with moonlight to multi-thousand lumen max output capabilities, all in an easily rechargeable fashion with no special gear required. One light that could serve as everything from your bedstand light, back pocket light, outdoor search light, or glovebox emergency light. Now that sounds interesting!
Looking at current reviews, I am glad to see a lot more detailed runtime testing being done out there now. There are many excellent reviewers and sites. But there is still relatively little in the way of direct comparative testing to other models of the same class in individual reviews.
So, I dusted off my old lightbox and ordered up a few compact 21700 models. I was able to recalibrate my lightbox for the higher output. I then reached out to some of my old manufacturer contacts, many of whom were interested in sending me some specimens to test and review. That testing is ongoing, and I will soon start posting my new reviews on my revamped personal website, flashlightreviews.ca (refreshed site to go live in a couple of days - old content is still up there right now).
So what will be different now?
My reviewing format will be revised somewhat, to both simplify my review production AND to provide you with more easily digestible comparative testing information. Detailed testing tables and charts will remain the focus. And the dedicated review website will provide a lot of new features and functionality - you will even be able to post your questions and comments right there on the actual review pages.
I will even make available my new complete database with testing results updated in near real-time while I am preparing the individual reviews (more details on that to follow on my website as well).
And I'm also going to start adding a feature I always eschewed - a rating system for lights. Given my main focus on the 21700 class right now, I think it's reasonable to finally start offering up an overall score, to allow you to quickly compare to other lights in that same class. If anything, my reviews are going to be even more tightly data-focused, with less extraneous material (sorry, no more YouTube video overviews – they were just too timing consuming for me to produce).
What's next after I work my way through the compact 1x21700 class lights? I don't know. I do plan to pick up additional lights here and there, in a curiosity-driven way. So expect to see the occasional higher-output thrower or flooder thrown in, maybe a headlamp or keychain light or two. We'll see.
I certainly won't be returning to the volume of lights I used to test, that wasn't sustainable and I still don't have the time. Let's take things one light at a time for now, and see where this goes.
Looking forward to being part of the community again!
From around 2008 until 2016, I used to post a lot of light reviews here. My main goal was always objective comparative testing of lights. This meant heavily standardized testing, with output, beam distance, beamshots and runtime measures for multiple comparable lights posted within the tables and charts of my individual reviews.
My reviews quickly became popular, and manufacturers soon began sending me their lights to review. By the time I wound down my review testing in 2016, I had reviewed nearly 600 flashlights.
So why did I stop, and why am I making a (limited) return?
The answer to the first part is a combination of life getting in the way, and waning interest.
As was likely obvious from my reviews, I have research background. As a successful professional in my own field, my work responsibilities continued to expand to the point where I had little free time left anymore - and couldn't handle the flood of requests I was getting.
I was also getting less satisfaction from my reviewing hobby. By ~2015, I had found the pace of innovation in flashlight design and performance had really slowed down. Through most of my time as a reviewer, overall LED emitter output was easily doubling every 12-18 months (Moore's law in action, I guess). And those early years saw huge explosions in innovative circuit designs - with increasingly efficient circuits and tons of specialty modes - plus huge experimentation in user interfaces (e.g., visually-linear ramping outputs, intuitive magnetic control rings, etc.). And improvements in beam patterns too - as a result of diverse designs and layouts in terms of emitters, reflectors, optics, etc. But by ~2015, it seemed like portable LED technology had pretty much fully matured, without the previous leaps in performance or design. An endless variety of me-too lights crossed my desk that didn't offer anything significant over what had come before.
Even worse, I was seeing increasingly the loss of useful features and designs, as manufacturers reverted to simpler and cheaper circuits (but with increasingly rakish physical designs, to distract you from the lack of substance). For example, formerly "hidden" modes were increasingly showing up in main sequences or too easily accessed (i.e., you could far too easily "tactically strobe" yourself now). The very useful "moonlight" modes for dark-adapted eyes were disappearing. And visually-linear ramps were turning into a joke with speeds so high that you could barely access a couple of discrete levels, etc.
Some of the other key drivers for my reviews had also diminished over time. I have always been singly focused on the truth when it comes to reviewing - by providing accurate, independent testing. While ANSI FL-1 standards were far from perfect, their widespread adoption at least helped to level the playing field in terms of reported specs - assuming makers were accurately representing their lights (which, while far from perfect, did improve over time and were fairly accurate by that point). Moreover, many other reviewers had joined the field, and started producing their own detailed reviews, so I felt the need for my own personal reviews had lessened somewhat - there were plenty of others out there to pick up the torch (pun intended).
That said, there were also a lot of reviewers who focused more on photography than rigorous comparative testing. Intentional or not, those glitzy reviews seemed to be serving more as free marketing tools for makers. I don't mean to cast shade on my fellow reviewers here - I believe the vast majority were simply focused on producing the highest quality reviews possible, and they had more photographic experience/skills than scientific. But the end result was a not-so-subtle shift of reviews being used are marketing tools, which I found frustrating.
So what brought me back?
I've lurked a little over the intervening years, to see what was new and emerging. A few innovations caught my eye, but nothing to really draw me back. In particular, emitter efficiency appears to have barely budged over the intervening years. Then I noticed how all the manufacturers had begun to produce 1x21700 lights.
I'll explain my interest in this battery format more on my new site (more about that in a moment). But the short version is that this small increase in size allows a lot more capacity to be stored in there. While that has obvious runtime advantages, the key point is what it means in terms of battery energy density - and thus how hard you can safely drive an emitter. Simply put, 21700 hits a sweet spot with standard ICR chemistry that can safely sustain higher discharge rates, allowing you drive an emitter much harder (at least for short periods of time).
Moreover, most major manufacturers are now bundling lights with branded 21700 batteries included. And these batteries often feature built-in charging capabilities through ubiquitous USB-C port connectors on the battery themselves, or through the lights. So, stand-alone battery chargers were no longer required, which is a real boon for getting these lights in the hands of non-flashaholics.
So, we now have the conditions to produce the ultimate holy grail of EDC flashlight technology - a reasonably compact light, with moonlight to multi-thousand lumen max output capabilities, all in an easily rechargeable fashion with no special gear required. One light that could serve as everything from your bedstand light, back pocket light, outdoor search light, or glovebox emergency light. Now that sounds interesting!
Looking at current reviews, I am glad to see a lot more detailed runtime testing being done out there now. There are many excellent reviewers and sites. But there is still relatively little in the way of direct comparative testing to other models of the same class in individual reviews.
So, I dusted off my old lightbox and ordered up a few compact 21700 models. I was able to recalibrate my lightbox for the higher output. I then reached out to some of my old manufacturer contacts, many of whom were interested in sending me some specimens to test and review. That testing is ongoing, and I will soon start posting my new reviews on my revamped personal website, flashlightreviews.ca (refreshed site to go live in a couple of days - old content is still up there right now).
So what will be different now?
My reviewing format will be revised somewhat, to both simplify my review production AND to provide you with more easily digestible comparative testing information. Detailed testing tables and charts will remain the focus. And the dedicated review website will provide a lot of new features and functionality - you will even be able to post your questions and comments right there on the actual review pages.
I will even make available my new complete database with testing results updated in near real-time while I am preparing the individual reviews (more details on that to follow on my website as well).
And I'm also going to start adding a feature I always eschewed - a rating system for lights. Given my main focus on the 21700 class right now, I think it's reasonable to finally start offering up an overall score, to allow you to quickly compare to other lights in that same class. If anything, my reviews are going to be even more tightly data-focused, with less extraneous material (sorry, no more YouTube video overviews – they were just too timing consuming for me to produce).
What's next after I work my way through the compact 1x21700 class lights? I don't know. I do plan to pick up additional lights here and there, in a curiosity-driven way. So expect to see the occasional higher-output thrower or flooder thrown in, maybe a headlamp or keychain light or two. We'll see.
I certainly won't be returning to the volume of lights I used to test, that wasn't sustainable and I still don't have the time. Let's take things one light at a time for now, and see where this goes.
Looking forward to being part of the community again!
