MagCharger vs T-1?

Does anyone know the lumen output of a MagCharger? I was comparing my T-1 to a friend's MagCharger, and the output looked very similar. He had more throw, but only by 50 ft. or so. Up close, and in a ceiling bounce test they performed almost identically.

BTW, it is worth mentioning that at a distance, with the Mag focused to spot, the T-1 has much more sidespill. IMHO this would be a more useful beam, but that really depends on the situation.

218 lumens according to MagLite
http://www.maglite.com/lampspecs_recharge.asp

Thanks Marduke! So they are very similar.

Apparently my eyesight is still good after the T-1 on high...so stupid...

Marduke said:

218 lumens according to MagLite
http://www.maglite.com/lampspecs_recharge.asp

Click to expand...

But we can probably agree both Mag and Fenix over-rates their lumens compared to Surefire (or Surefire simply under-rates theirs), the 218 from Mag is probably quite comparable to the 225 from Fenix.

Also noticed that they probably have very similar runtimes in real life too, both between 1 hour to 1.5 hours.

For giggles, I compared a Magcharger with WA1160 bulb to the T1. Apples and oranges, I know. The MC/1160 combo blew away the T1, with maybe 2x to 3x the output (according to my eyeballs). I assume that runtime really suffers with the 1160 however.

The MagCharger with 1160 will have about 30 minutes of runtime with a pure white beam! If you want longer runtime, you need to upgrade the battery.
I have a MagCharger with the 1160, just amazing!

RoyJ said:

But we can probably agree both Mag and Fenix over-rates their lumens compared to Surefire (or Surefire simply under-rates theirs), the 218 from Mag is probably quite comparable to the 225 from Fenix.

Also noticed that they probably have very similar runtimes in real life too, both between 1 hour to 1.5 hours.

Click to expand...

I dunno why do people started saying fenix overrate their lumens. Some people even go so far to claim 1x surefire lumen = 2x fenix lumen. They rate it at emitter, but that does NOT equal overrate.

jzmtl said:

I dunno why do people started saying fenix overrate their lumens. Some people even go so far to claim 1x surefire lumen = 2x fenix lumen. They rate it at emitter, but that does NOT equal overrate.

Click to expand...

Because people are used to, and trust, Surefire lumen ratings. Most companies are not even close to as honest as Surefire. If they have become the "standard" by which we judge other companies then Fenix, by measuring something besides torch lumen's, is going to be considered by most to overrate.

bones_708 said:

Because people are used to, and trust, Surefire lumen ratings. Most companies are not even close to as honest as Surefire. If they have become the "standard" by which we judge other companies then Fenix, by measuring something besides torch lumen's, is going to be considered by most to overrate.

Click to expand...

So either one is underrate or the other is overrate, can't have it both ways. I've seen people claim G2L is same brightness as P3D turbo, because one underrate a bit and the other overrate a bit, so 80=160.

jzmtl said:

So either one is underrate or the other is overrate, can't have it both ways. I've seen people claim G2L is same brightness as P3D turbo, because one underrate a bit and the other overrate a bit, so 80=160.

Click to expand...

Flashlightreviews provides a way to get through this fog of fanboyism.

E2D = 60 Surefire Lumens = 40 on the flashlightreviews.com chart
L2DCE (P4) = 88 on the flashlightreviews.com chart

Therefore, the L2DCE P4 is (60/40*88) = 132 Surefire lumens.

That means the Fenix figure of 135 lumens for the Fenix L2DCE P4 Turbo, is only about 3% off.

jzmtl said:

I dunno why do people started saying fenix overrate their lumens. Some people even go so far to claim 1x surefire lumen = 2x fenix lumen. They rate it at emitter, but that does NOT equal overrate.

Click to expand...

It's not just Fenix, it's the vast majority of companies that make flashlights. "Overrate" does seem to be the proper term. Emitter lumens are always higher than those measured out the front. So if a company is reporting emitter lumens for all of their lights, they are indeed overrating the output. Surefire, Pelican, and PentagonLights all measure out the front. With Surefire being the most conservative it would seem.

Except for a Mini-mag in candlestick mode, no one uses a flashlight without the head attached. So why does the vast majority of the industry measure lumen output at the emitter? Most obvious answer is so they can claim a higher lumen rating for any given model. They tell you what a particular light is capable of, instead of what you actually get when turning it on.

When it comes to emitter lumens, in most cases you can subtract 1/3 from the claimed lumen output in order to get a more realistic number. With some models, the actual out the front output does approach very close to 1/2. But I'm not saying that's the case with Fenix lights.

Monocrom said:

It's not just Fenix, it's the vast majority of companies that make flashlights. "Overrate" does seem to be the proper term. Emitter lumens are always higher than those measured out the front. So if a company is reporting emitter lumens for all of their lights, they are indeed overrating the output. Surefire, Pelican, and PentagonLights all measure out the front. With Surefire being the most conservative it would seem.

Except for a Mini-mag in candlestick mode, no one uses a flashlight without the head attached. So why does the vast majority of the industry measure lumen output at the emitter? Most obvious answer is so they can claim a higher lumen rating for any given model. They tell you what a particular light is capable of, instead of what you actually get when turning it on.

When it comes to emitter lumens, in most cases you can subtract 1/3 from the claimed lumen output in order to get a more realistic number. With some models, the actual out the front output does approach very close to 1/2. But I'm not saying that's the case with Fenix lights.

Click to expand...

I don't understand... did I just not disprove that with flashlightreviews.com figures?

meuge said:

Flashlightreviews provides a way to get through this fog of fanboyism.

E2D = 60 Surefire Lumens = 40 on the flashlightreviews.com chart
L2DCE (P4) = 88 on the flashlightreviews.com chart

Therefore, the L2DCE P4 is (60/40*88) = 132 Surefire lumens.

That means the Fenix figure of 135 lumens for the Fenix L2DCE P4 Turbo, is only about 3% off.

Click to expand...

You missed this part: http://flashlightreviews.com/features/output_vs_throw.htm#lumens

E2D= 60 Surefire lumens X 1.62= 64 Flashlightreview lumens = @6% positive difference.

L2DCE= 88 on FLR chart X 1.39 = 122 lumens = @9% negative difference in claimed output.

spoonrobot said:

You missed this part: http://flashlightreviews.com/features/output_vs_throw.htm#lumens

E2D= 60 Surefire lumens X 1.62= 64 Flashlightreview lumens = @6% positive difference.

L2DCE= 88 on FLR chart X 1.39 = 122 lumens = @9% negative difference in claimed output.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but even so (and thanks for correcting me), 122 lumens is not 1/3 less lumens, but only 10% less.

I am not particularly fond of Fenix, I just like to talk facts, rather than opinions.

meuge said:

I don't understand... did I just not disprove that with flashlightreviews.com figures?

Click to expand...

Here's a fact that I know for sure.

Streamlight UltraStinger = Rated at 295 lumens. Actual output out the front, closer to 160. Sorry, but that is close to 1/2.

That's just one example. Once again, I'm not saying that Fenix lights are actually 1/2 as bright as they are claimed to be. Not saying all Streamlight models are 1/2 as bright as they claim to be. What I'm saying is, some models come close to being 1/2 as bright as they claim to be.

I'm also saying that since lights are used with the head attached, it makes no sense for flashlight companies to measure lumen output at the emitter. A company such as Lumens Factory, now they have a good reason for measuring at the emitter. But if you make flashlights, it borders on idiotic to measure lumens at the emitter.... since none of your customers will use your product without the head in place. And the companies know this!

And engine manufactures rate engines in horsepower, and car manufacturers use the same ratings, but why don't people complain that they don't rate energy transfer to the road, where it matters??

Because measuring power at the source is a common baseline that is easier, and much more accurate to do, and give you a solid starting point for calculating many other factors when you start upgrading, modding, and taking other things into consideration. New reflectors, drivers, lenes, tires, transmisions, heatsinking, spoilers, everything can have an effect, which is much easier to deal with when you use the best and most logical reference possible.

Marduke said:

.... much easier to deal with when you use the best and most logical reference possible.

Click to expand...

In this case, the most logical thing to do is measure lumen output with the stock head attached. Surefire does this, yet it causes no problems when someone wants to mod a Surefire light. (I don't hear Milky complaining about modding Surefires that folks send to him).

Do you drive a car without wheels attached? Do you fly a plane without wings in place?.... Why measure a light's output without the head attached? One reason only; to jack-up those output numbers and make folks think they are getting more for their hard-earned dollars than they really are.

Monocrom said:

Do you drive a car without wheels attached? Do you fly a plane without wings in place?.... Why measure a light's output without the head attached? One reason only; to jack-up those output numbers and make folks think they are getting more for their hard-earned dollars than they really are.

Click to expand...

But you still measure those things at the source, not the final output. You compare thrust of a plane based off what the engine can outout, not the net thrust after taking into account drag effects, as this changes drastically with minor adjustments to other things, and is very specific when matching an engine to a plane.

When it comes to comparing numbers, a manufacturer saying it's car can put so many watts of energy onto the pavement means nothing when sitting next to another car that has a accurate (and conventional) measure of horsepower and torque.

For anyone who is educated, it's easy to take the raw, accurate numbers and draw your own conclusions between products.

Considering many of these companies, like Fenix, don't have the means to take an accurate out the front lumens measurement, I'd rather they quote emitter lumens based on the LED they are using at the current they are driving it at. As long as you understand it is emitter lumens, based on the size of the reflector, type of reflector, etc, I know what to expect to see coming out of the flashlight.

With Surefire, if they say "100 lumens" I don't know what to expect. People say it maybe brighter than 100 lumens? If they actually told me what LED they are using, what bin, what drive current, and what the emitter lumens are supposed to be, then I'd have a better idea of what to expect.

So who's better? Surefire who gives us their lumen rating, not knowing how they come up with it, or a company telling us what LED they are using (Fenix P3D *Q5) and telling us the emitter lumens, which lets us figure out what kind of current they are sending to the LED.

If all these smaller companies, like Fenix, tried taking their own out the front lumen readings they may vary from company to company based on their set up, the accuracy or setting of their integrating sphere, etc. So we would probably end up with less accurate and more confusing stats. I think for LED lights it's best to list as many details about the LED as possible, such as Cree Q5, Rebel100, etc, and list the emitter lumens. They should specify that the lumens are emitter lumens though.

Also keep in mind LED's already have a built in lens, so the emitter lumens are the lumens coming out the front of the LED's lens. So LED's have less loss than an incan bulb because the lumens are more focused and are less dependant on the reflector. Incan bulbs send out light in all directions and will have more loss from the reflector.

Also, from flashlightreviews:

"Remember, this is ONLY AN ESTIMATE and should not be used for advertising, marketing, or definitive comparisons. The Lightbox could be in error, or the calculation could be in error."

So trying to determine lumens from their converstions may not be very accurate.

BTW, when I buy light bulbs, for my home lighting, they quote lumens. This is bulb lumens. Once I put the bulb in my lamp, the shade is going to cause a lot of lumen loss. So should light bulb companies quote "out of the lampshade lumens"?

Marduke said:

For anyone who is educated, it's easy to take the raw, accurate numbers and draw your own conclusions between products.

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right!

When it comes to lumens output, the educated way to go about determining a realistic lumen rating is to subtract 1/3 from the inflated numbers a company gives..... Unless it's Surefire, PentagonLights, or Pelican.