Sub-Lumen "Moonlight" Mode Poll

[Etsu]

Great comparison shot... Could you possibly underexpose it (and/or flip an overhead light on) so there's some detail in the hotspots of the all the "brighter" lights (yeah you'll probably lose L2B&C). One shot overexposed for spill and one underexposed for hotspot makes a huge difference in being able to discern the brightness differences.

I did take a half-second exposure at the same time. Here it is:

The dimmest moonlight mode of the SC52 is lost in the above exposure, but it better shows the brightness differences in the brighter moonlight modes of the other lights.

Also agree that the SC52 "appears" about half as bright as the Quarks, but due the logarithmic perception thing, that means ~ 1/3 to 1/4 the lumen output, which is about what I measure it to be. If you are using a DSLR, you can use it to meter the lumen outputs as well - just calibrate to, and meter for, shutter speed.

I'm not so sure the logarithmic perception applies well at very low brightness levels. By that point, our eyes are no longer gaining/losing night adaptation, and our pupils aren't dilating. So the physiological reasons for seeing light in a logarithmic way no longer applies. My guess is that that SC52 Low2A mode is a little less than 0.1 lumens. The Quark XPG2 is about 0.2 lumens, and the Quark XML2 is about 0.3 lumens.

 

[reppans]

I'm not so sure the logarithmic perception applies well at very low brightness levels. By that point, our eyes are no longer gaining/losing night adaptation, and our pupils aren't dilating. So the physiological reasons for seeing light in a logarithmic way no longer applies. My guess is that that SC52 Low2A mode is a little less than 0.1 lumens. The Quark XPG2 is about 0.2 lumens, and the Quark XML2 is about 0.3 lumens.

I personally believe the logarithmic light perception thing is a pure psychological thing and does not account for the biomechanics of pupil dilation and rhodopsin. In any case, your guesstimates are about what I measure for each of the lights and helps confirm that my SC52 is "normal" (ie, not sample variation) and explain the 3x spec difference in runtime (efficiency) between a QPA-X and SC52 for should be the same mode (although a side-by-side sub-lumen runtime test didn't turn out quite that way). And while we are on the subject, how do you find the two lights 3 lumen modes? I measure them to be 3 lms and 1.5 lms.... the rest of the modes OK - just off by the usual conservative vs liberal lumen scale thing.

 

[Etsu]

In any case, your guesstimates are about what I measure for each of the lights and helps confirm that my SC52 is "normal" (ie, not sample variation) and explain the 3x spec difference in runtime (efficiency) between a QPA-X and SC52 for should be the same mode (although a side-by-side sub-lumen runtime test didn't turn out quite that way).

Wow... you had the patience for doing a run-time moonlight mode test? How did it turn out?

And while we are on the subject, how do you find the two lights 3 lumen modes? I measure them to be 3 lms and 1.5 lms.... the rest of the modes OK - just off by the usual conservative vs liberal lumen scale thing.

I haven't measured, but again, I'd estimate that the SC52 Low1 mode is about half as bright as the Quark's low mode. If the Quark is really 3 lumens (and it probably is), then I'd agree with your estimate that the SC52 is about 1.5 lumens. From my measurements on the SC52 medium modes, they seem to be fairly close to ZL's stated specs. The SC52's brightest two high modes are overstated by ZL, and nowhere close to the QP2A-X max (which is understated).

 

[jruser]

I didn't think I cared for it, but I recently swapped my Quark for a D25LC2. The first time I powered up the Eagletac in middle of the night, I realized how much I really missed moonlight mode.

 

[reppans]

Wow... you had the patience for doing a run-time moonlight mode test? How did it turn out?

I haven't measured, but again, I'd estimate that the SC52 Low1 mode is about half as bright as the Quark's low mode. If the Quark is really 3 lumens (and it probably is), then I'd agree with your estimate that the SC52 is about 1.5 lumens. From my measurements on the SC52 medium modes, they seem to be fairly close to ZL's stated specs. The SC52's brightest two high modes are overstated by ZL, and nowhere close to the QP2A-X max (which is understated).

I run my sub-lumen runtime tests on AAAAs from a 9V.... cuts the time down from weeks to days - HERE's was the kick-off: Let's just say the SC52 won the highest spec sheet claims, and longest actually hours of runtime, but it lost on lumen-hrs of efficiency. I was surprised, as I have a first gen H51w (0.2 lm spec) that measures 3x as bright and ran longer (in a previous test). The winner was a real surprise, and it wasn't even close...... I'm doing a few more low lumen side-by-sides and may get around to posting all the results in separate thread.

Agree the Quark 280 lms is understated, but I think it's due to the fact that 47's doesn't separately disclose the step-down for the light. I use their LV XML heads to calibrate my light meter (any mode) and match Ti-force's readings HERE. He's the only reviewer I've seen on CPF that claims laboratory lumen accuracy... and this calibration matches up pretty well with the rest of AA/sub-lumen collection. In comparison, my ZLs are consistently ~25-30% overstated, except for all the L modes on this SC52 which are off by 2-4x.

 

[kaichu dento]

Okay, here's my moonlights. Camera settings: ISO 200, F/8, 2 second exposure. White balance: daylight.
Note that I had to overexpose a bit, in order for the dimmest setting of the SC52 to show up. This makes the SC52 highest moonlight look almost as bright as the Quarks. In reality, it looks less than half as bright as the Quarks. Aside from that, the rest of the moonlights look pretty much the way it shows up here.

I'd love to see the new HDS .02 in there, along with the SC600 mkII, V10R and TC-R1.
I think my V10R Ti would probably be lower than the SC52, but I know for a fact the TC-R1 would.

Great photo and I really like that you included the legendary Solitaire!

 

[glg20]

I recently purchased a SF Titan and have been using the lowest settings a lot early in the morning. With 57 year old eyes my night vision probably is not as great as someone that is younger. Very useful to keep from waking the wife.

 

[kaichu dento]

The Titan has the perfect beam pattern and tint for ulra-low levels and they just don't come any easier to use.

 

[PCC]

Here are a few photos that I've taken of my lights that go to one lumen or less. I had to separate them into two groups: infinitely adjustable and fixed output lights.

Here are three of four of my infinitely adjustable lights (forgot to get the Quantum DD out to play). They're, from left to right: ThruNite Ti (used for comparison purposes); Peak Logan QTC set to as low as I could get it, but, with some QTC drift; JetBeam RRT01 set to about as low as I could get it; Peak Eiger QTC set to as low as I could get it, but, with some QTC drift. The photos were taken at different exposures to highlight the different outputs.

Here are the fixed output lights on their lowest modes (from left to right): Spark SD-6 500CW with the optional reflector: ThruNite T30 with XP-G2 swap; 4Sevens Quark 123T; ThruNite T10; Ra Clicky 120 with 219 swap; ThruNite Ti moonlight; L3 L10 219 four mode; in the forefront is the JetBeam RRT01 for comparison. Yes, it is on.

I turned off the SD-6 because it was too bright.

 

[Stockhouse13]

A Nice neutral or Warm moonlight of 1-2, tailstanding is nice during storms such as Sandy. Enough light to see and good battery duration.