NiteCore Lumens Rating

[mighty82]

I think the difference between the P2D and P3D is more than 20 lumens. I think chevrofreak estimated the P3D Q5 to be around 200 lumens, and the P2D a lot less (I can't remember how much). So it seems the P3D Q5 is about what it's suppose to be and the P2D is much more underrated.

One thing I notice is that your P3D rebel (the one you compared the D10/EX10 to) seems to be quite dim compared to the Q5 version. I have compared both myself and the rebel version was not noticably dimmer than the Q5 version. The Q5 looks easily 50 lumens brigher than the Rebel in your pictures. Could you have a "bad" P3D Rebel 100?

 

[UnknownVT]

I am however, quite sure that wile 180 lumens is claimed in the P2D, its reported to have less then that in Torch Lumens. In fact, even the P1D on max is suposedly brighter.

Thanks for the input - I would agree with you.

Since I believe Fenix like most other manufacturers tend to quote LED bulb lumens.

However although NiteCore seems to be doing the laudable thing of quoting "torch" or "out the front" lumens -
I was questioning the 130 lumens rating of the EX10 (NDI and D10 both on Li-Ion) - when compared to the Extreme which is rated by NiteCore themselves at 190 lumens (on primary CR123) - that's a 60 lumens difference - which is not insignificant.

Speculation was that the Extreme rating might be bulb lumens -
but this is guesswork/speculation only.

If that was the case, we have the EX10 which seems no less bright than the Extreme (both on primary CR123) both by eye and by photos -
the loss going from bulb (190 lumens) to torch/out the front (130 lumens) is 60 lumens - surely this is not an insignificant loss?

 

[phantom23]

I'd like to justify 'chevofreaks' 100 lumens. I had three NDIs (two grey, one silver), only one of them reached 2500lux/1m using 14500. The other two barely reached 1600lux/1m (including current 'silver' one) on the same cells.

 

[UnknownVT]

I think the difference between the P2D and P3D is more than 20 lumens. I think chevrofreak estimated the P3D Q5 to be around 200 lumens, and the P2D a lot less (I can't remember how much). So it seems the P3D Q5 is about what it's suppose to be and the P2D is much more underrated.

Ratings given by Fenix are (links to Fenix specs) -
P3D-Q5 = 215 lumens
P3D-RB100 = 200 lumens
P2D-Q5 = 180 lumens

So the difference between the P3D-Q5 and P2D-Q5 is by Fenix's ratings 35 lumens.

One thing I notice is that your P3D rebel (the one you compared the D10/EX10 to) seems to be quite dim compared to the Q5 version. I have compared both myself and the rebel version was not noticably dimmer than the Q5 version. The Q5 looks easily 50 lumens brigher than the Rebel in your pictures. Could you have a "bad" P3D Rebel 100?

I don't think so ....
I think we already agreed in my beamshots P3D-Q5 > P3D-RB100 > P2D-Q5.

I think it's the different characteristics in the beams may make the RB100 seem less bright -
(1) tint - the RB100 has a nicer warmer tint - however bluer tints tend to seem brighter - that's why I removed the color/tint by desaturation so one can compare the luminance (brightness) only.
When that was done the P3D-RB100 seems closer to the P3D-Q5.

(2) the P3D RB100 spreads its light out more both in the hotspot as well as side-spill - more concentrated hotspots and side-spill tend to seem brighter too - but the RB100 is still visibly brighter than the P2D-Q5 - which is what one would expect.

For more direct comparisons please see -

Fenix P3Dce-Q5 Premium Comparison Review

 

[mighty82]

Ratings given by Fenix are (links to Fenix specs) -
P3D-Q5 = 215 lumens
P3D-RB100 = 200 lumens
P2D-Q5 = 180 lumens

So the difference between the P3D-Q5 and P2D-Q5 is by Fenix's ratings 35 lumens.

Yes, I am aware of the ratings given by fenix. But the rating for the P2D is way off in real life from what I have seen in different graphs and reviews, while the P3D is almost correct. Maybe one could say that they used "otf lumens" with the P3D and "emitter lumens" with the P2D. I think the P3D is at least 50 lumens brighter than the P2D, probably more.

 

[UnknownVT]

I think the P3D is at least 50 lumens brighter than the P2D, probably more.

That's very brave of you to state difference in lumens -
I only dare talk in comparisons and quote the spec'd lumens.

Which P3D? I assume the Q5?

and which P2D?
The P2D-Q5 (180 lumens) is supposed to be brighter than a plain P2D-CE (135 lumens).

So if it were the P2D-CE then the difference according to Fenix's ratings is P3D-Q5 (215 lumens) vs. P2D-CE (135 lumens) = difference of 80 lumens (I am not going to say "huge" )

I am using the P2D-Q5 in my comparison photos,
this is supposed to be the same head as the L2D-Q5 I compared.
(please see Fenix L2D-Q5 Comparison Review ).

 

[mighty82]

I'm not "stating" the difference in lumens. I'm just saying I THINK the P3D q5 is AT LEAST 50 lumens brigher than the P2D. From chevrofreak's and others tests and graphs it seems that all the P3D models are much closer to the stated output than the P2D models are, same with the L2D. Which is not a suprise really.

 

[UnknownVT]

I'm not "stating" the difference in lumens. I'm just saying I THINK the P3D q5 is AT LEAST 50 lumens brigher than the P2D. From chevrofreak's and others tests and graphs it seems that all the P3D models are much closer to the stated output than the P2D models are, same with the L2D. Which is not a suprise really.

I am a big chevrofreak fan and regularly save a copy of the threads started by him.

You will have to help me here - with specific links please
even with a search just now I could only find the Fenix P2D runtimes and Fenix P3D runtimes - neither of the runtimes make any mention of qualifiers (they are dated far back enough - over a year ago - that I don't think they are the Q5 versions and more likely the plain CE version)

The Fenix P2D runtimes does give an estimated lumens reading of the P2D(CE?) " Fenix P2D - max - Energizer E2 CR123a: 1534 (est 109.57 lumens) "

Whereas I could not find the same estimate in Fenix P3D runtimes but on his graph scale the P3D (CE?) Max on RayOVac RL123a was approx 127 - the scale seems different to that of the P2D (CE?) and I do not know how that translates to lumens.

So please help me out with specific links to chevrofreak's P3D-Q5 and P2D-Q5 runtimes and lumens estimates?

Thanks,

 

[mighty82]

I can't find the graphs now, doesn't seem like they are on the cpf any more, but I know he tested the P3D Q5 and estimated it to be 196 lumens. I can't remember what output the P2D q5 was estimated to (not by chevrofreak), but I believe it was below 150 lumens. Chevrofreak tested the Novatac 120P and estimated it to be 125 lumens HERE, and from the comparisons I have seen the 120P is about equal to the P2D Q5 if not brighter. That tells me the P2D Q5 has to be below 150 lumens.

With all that said there is no way we are going to know the real output of any of these lights without a integrating sphere. We can measure the approximately output relative to the other lights, but that doesn't help when we don't know the real output from any of them. It's all just guesstimates. I'm done arguing for today

 

[UnknownVT]

I can't find the graphs now, doesn't seem like they are on the cpf any more, but I know he tested the P3D Q5 and estimated it to be 196 lumens. I can't remember what output the P2D q5 was estimated to (not by chevrofreak), but I believe it was below 150 lumens. Chevrofreak tested the Novatac 120P and estimated it to be 125 lumens HERE, and from the comparisons I have seen the 120P is about equal to the P2D Q5 if not brighter. That tells me the P2D Q5 has to be below 150 lumens.

With all that said there is no way we are going to know the real output of any of these lights without a integrating sphere. We can measure the approximately output relative to the other lights, but that doesn't help when we don't know the real output from any of them. It's all just guesstimates. I'm done arguing for today

Is that what we were doing?
- I wish you told me we were supposed to be arguing.....

Like you said all this is just guesstimates -
I can only offer the beamshots as comparison -
and even that can be open to interpretation/opinion when they are close.

Pity we cannot find chevrofreak's runtimes for the P3D-Q5 and P2D-Q5 -
it seems very strange that there is no trace of them on CPF -
because even if threads are locked or moved they still show up on a search of "threads started by" and there should be no reason why they would have been removed - I also have a search list of chevrofreak's threads dated back to Feb/5/2008 and still no trace of any P3D-Q5 or P2D-Q5 runtimes.

However, if we can accept post #29 the stairway beamshots seem to be in the order of Fenix P3D-Q5 > EX10 = P3D-RB100 > P2D-Q5.

Even if the P2D-Q5 is only 150 lumens -
wouldn't the EX10 rating of 130 lumens still seem a bit off?
since it is noticably brighter than the P2D-Q5 both by visual/eye and photo comparison .......

 

[Nake]

Here's the P3D Q5 chart.

http://lights.chevrofreak.com/runtimes/Fenix P3D CE Q5/

 

[mighty82]

Here's the P3D Q5 chart.

http://lights.chevrofreak.com/runtimes/Fenix P3D CE Q5/

So that's where it was hiding I was starting to worry i was imagining things :sweat:

 

[UnknownVT]

This also may be useful -
Comparison summary table from selfbuilt's 1xCR123A/RCR Round-up Review
which includes the P2D-Q5, Novatac 120P and NiteCore Extreme.

His sample of the P2D-Q5 seems to hold up quite well in the company.

 

[Crenshaw]

hmmm, after all the speculation, i had forgotten to say that i do agree with you, as far as your pictures go, the lumens numbers on the nitecores do look abit strange. I still havnt got a nitecore extreme, and i may not ever get one now that i have a creemator on the way. However, i will be getting the ex10 soon.

For what its worth, my ML1 (sigline) is estimated to have 165 torch lumens, and has a high drive current of 900ma. Its brighter then my P1D-Q5 by a very tiny tiny, almost un noticable amount. so...go figure.:shrug:



Crenshaw

 

[UnknownVT]

hmmm, after all the speculation, i had forgotten to say that i do agree with you, as far as your pictures go, the lumens numbers on the nitecores do look abit strange.

Many thanks for that.

I brought up this question because I happened to have 4 samples of the NiteCore Extreme - three of which were very close in output, when I did a comparison with the EX10 - I actually thought they were close if anything the EX might have been very slightly brighter. This surprised me since other reviews like selfbuilt's seemed to have them the other way round and significantly so.

NiteCore's rating for the EX10 was 130 lumens - I thought I'd also check against the other 130 lumen NiteCore lights like the D10 and NDI - these latter on Li-Ion 14500 - also were close to the output of the Extreme.

The discreprency was the Extreme was rated by NiteCore as 190 lumens (on primary CR123) - so there was a 60 lumens difference which ought to be discernable as 60 lumens is not INsignificant.

Although I cannot disagree that the difference between 130 lumens and 190 lumens is 46% and 1.6db - which on paper and in isolation may only just be perceptible - I know that kind of difference should be visible side-by-side and by photographs.

The simplest test would be to ask a flashaholic which would they really prefer, everything else being equal, a 130 lumens or a 190 lumens flashlight?

 

[CM]

...Although I cannot disagree that the difference between 130 lumens and 190 lumens is 46% and 1.6db - which on paper and in isolation may only just be perceptible - I know that kind of difference should be visible side-by-side and by photographs.

The simplest test would be to ask a flashaholic which would they really prefer, everything else being equal, a 130 lumens or a 190 lumens flashlight?

Ratings can be deceiving and the 130 lumens may actually be higher on the actual lights and/or the 190 may be lower. An integrating sphere will tell the truth. In the absence of that, a simple light meter and a totally dark room with white walls can serve as a makeshift measurement device. Do you have a lightmeter? A Meterman LM631 is relatively inexpensive and is an essential item in a flashaholic's toolbox.

 

[GregWormald]

I'm afraid the simple answer is that the older Nitecore Extreme was rated before they went to 'torch' measurements, and the newer lights were rated on the new system.
So 190 emitter lumens is approximately the same as 130 torch lumens.
Greg

 

[Bullzeyebill]

Like CM has said, and I agree, a lightmeter with some simple bounce testing in a small room will give some good comparisons between different lights. One day, a few years ago, I decided to purchase a lightmeter instead of my next flashlight, and I never looked back. I am so pleased that I do not have to rely on subjectivity anymore. A lightmeter, and a DMM will open your eyes.

Bill

 

[vb14]

I'm afraid the simple answer is that the older Nitecore Extreme was rated before they went to 'torch' measurements, and the newer lights were rated on the new system.
So 190 emitter lumens is approximately the same as 130 torch lumens.
Greg

Edgetac said in here that the max 200 lumens for the extreme is torch lumens.

 

[UnknownVT]

Like CM has said, and I agree, a lightmeter with some simple bounce testing in a small room will give some good comparisons between different lights. One day, a few years ago, I decided to purchase a lightmeter instead of my next flashlight, and I never looked back. I am so pleased that I do not have to rely on subjectivity anymore. A lightmeter, and a DMM will open your eyes.

With respect - the whole premise was that I could not SEE much or any difference between 3 samples of the Extreme (rated 190 lumens by NiteCore) and their EX10 and NDI, D10 (latter 2 on Li-Ion) - all rated at 130 lumens,
and I illustrated this with photos.

In other words I could not ignore the evidence in front of my face, and anyone else should be able to see (or equally refute) for themselves what I saw.

It is a qualitative look-see and I have stated quite clearly that there may be absolute measurable differences - but they look about the same level of brightness.

Although a light meter may be more objective
- the application of which may not.

Where does one take a reading - in the hotspot, or where in the side-spill? How does one integrate the different readings?

"Integrate" that sounds like one really ought to have an integrating sphere
- I don't think many have such a thing - they are expensive - and although people have home-made ones - they can only approximate to a true integrating sphere, and can have problems.

Besides that gives very little idea of how the lights look in real-life -
a photo - admittedly only qualitative and open to different interpretations, will at least give an idea of what the beams looks like in real-life.

So let us please not argue over absolute "correctness" -
this is not what it was about -
it simply was I have 3 samples of a flashlight the Extreme rated by NiteCore at 190 lumens (on primary CR123) - and I could not see much difference against 3 other Nitecore flashlights EX10, D10 and NDI (latter 2 on Li-Ion) which were rated by NiteCore at 130 lumens
- and I thought that the 60 lumens was not an INsignificant amount of light - which one should be able to see when compared side-by-side - and I could not, and illustrated this with photos..... and there are enough comparison photos in this thread to show that the EX10, D10 and NDI (latter 2 on Li-Ion) all rated at 130 lumens seem pretty close to the Extreme (190 Lumens) and other brands of flashlight rated by their respective manufacturers at around 180-200 lumens.

I was of the opinion that maybe -

I'm afraid the simple answer is that the older Nitecore Extreme was rated before they went to 'torch' measurements, and the newer lights were rated on the new system.
So 190 emitter lumens is approximately the same as 130 torch lumens.

However I do see -

Edgetac said in here that the max 200 lumens for the extreme is torch lumens.

So we are back to a discreprency - why is the Extreme rated at 190-200 lumens when their EX10, D10 and NDI are all rated at 130 lumens?
- when by eye and side-by-side and stairway photos seem to show very little difference - surely a 60 lumens (or 46%, 1.6db) difference ought to be perpceptible when compared side-by-side?