Does the Fenix T1 really puts out 225 lumens?

Comparing both the SF M3T and Fenix T1, the M3T is advertised at 250 lumens while T1 is 225 lumens. To my eyes the M3T is significantly brighter than the T1 and it really doesn't look like 25 lumens difference only. I think the Fenix T1 is at most 180 lumens to my eyes.

T1 is probably 225 emitter lumens, which would probably be around 180 lumens out the front. Surefire rates lumens out the front, and can be conservative, so if they claim 250 lumens, then you're getting at least 250 lumens which I would expect to look brighter than the T1.

Also the T1 will go for 90 minutes at ~180 lumens out the front with two CR123s, where the M3T is quoted as being 225 lumens on SF's website for 20 minutes, with THREE 123's. Amazing how far LED's have come.

Monochrom will come into the thread and post that you have to subtract 1/3 or more from the Fenix numbers to get the "Surefire" numbers in:

3... 2... 1...

Anyway, while I don't have the tools to measure the output, I can tell you that it's significantly more light than a P4 L2D-CE. I would say less than 2X, but more than 1.5X.

And my previous calculations, using the figures from the flashlightreviews.com lightbox data, say that Fenix does overrate their lights (compared to Surefire), but only by about 10%.

I would therefore say that the T1 is probably closer to 200 "Surefire" lumens out front, then to 180... but of course WadeF does have more experience (not to mention more lights). Plus, I am not entirely convinced that "surefire" lumens are equivalent to real lumens.

M3T max is 225 lumens, I always thought it is 250.

meuge said:

Monochrom will come into the thread and post that you have to subtract 1/3 or more from the Fenix numbers to get the "Surefire" numbers in:

3... 2... 1...

Click to expand...

Who's Monochrom??

Anyway, my buddy Wade took care of that already. Thanks Wade! :twothumbs

P.S. - Don't hate me just because it's true!

Monocrom said:

P.S. - Don't hate me just because it's true!

Click to expand...

Well, since I've already shown that it's not true, using the flashlightreviews.com numbers, I'm going to go with facts over opinions.

Cheers.

Let's play nice, now. The way SureFire underrates their incandescent lights would give the M3 a huge advantage, on fresh cells. The output they state is what you're seeing about halfway through the life of the cells, whereas the T1's output should remain fairly constant. No, the T1 isn't putting out exactly 225 lumens, but it ain't no slouch either. Wade's got it. LEDs have come a loooooong way.

What Fenix is doing is simply stating what Cree has the emitter rated at. The problem is that this is measured at the emitter on a lab bench. You will never see this output in real life as you lose at least 30 percent due to reflector/optics once that emitter is inside an actual flashlight.

What Surefire is going is measuring the actual output of their flashlights which is the only honest way to do it. Very few manufacturers do this unfortunately. For incandescents they even measure this output closer to the midpoint than the start of the test run so the results tend to be underrated as well.

Measuring the actual output of a flashlight should be an industry standard. There is absolutely no excuse for not doing this.

meuge said:

Well, since I've already shown that it's not true, using the flashlightreviews.com numbers, I'm going to go with facts over opinions.

Cheers.

Click to expand...

Well.... This is CPF; the one place where everyone appreciates a "Rebel."

I'm not exactly sure which fact you proved. If you're stating that emitter lumens are not higher than those measured out the front, going to have to disagree with that "fact."

I know for sure that the output of a Streamlight UltraStinger is about 160 lumens. Yet, the claimed output is 295. Now if you bought a light that you thought was almost 300 lumens, and then you found out that its output is nearly half that, wouldn't you be just a bit upset?

Not knocking Streamlight. I have a handful of their lights, and still sometimes carry the TL-2 LED model. Just using that as an example. If someone posts a question about what they're actually getting for their hard-earned money, I think they deserve an honest answer.

KROMATICS said:

Measuring the actual output of a flashlight should be an industry standard. There is absolutely no excuse for not doing this.

Click to expand...

What if the smaller flashlight companies can't afford an integrating sphere capable of giving an accurate lumen value? Also who's to say every company's integrating sphere, if they could afford one, would give the same result? Are we going to enforce some kind of INTERNATIONAL LUMEN STANDARD where all flashlight makers have to submit their lights for an OFFICIAL rating before they can put their product on the market? I would not be in favor of that as it would reduce the # of companies looking to get into making flashlights.

It's certainly possible the Fenix T1 has 200 lumens coming out the front. 225 lumens seems a bit low if they are driving a Q5 at around 1A, if they are quoting emitter lumens, as I would expect to emitter lumens to be closer to 250. However, I don't know for sure what current is getting to the emitter.

I will have to play with some light box testing and compare the total output to other lights.

The M3Ts "225 lumen" assembly is actually pretty close to 400+ *bulb* lumens on a fresh set of cells (depends heavily on brand of cells here). So that's over 250 solid torch lumen. If the Fenix is being rated 225 at the emitter, than expect something like 175 torch lumens best case scenario, assuming the LED is at a reasonable temperature. Reflector losses for LEDs are not as high as for incans because LEDs emit light on a "hemisphere" not a "whole sphere." The more controlled radiation pattern means that there isn't any light being lost "out the back, through the hole, down the tube" like you get with incans. 20-25% conversion losses is more accurate for LEDs, 90+% conversion can be achieved with certain setups on LEDs.

Plus, I am not entirely convinced that "surefire" lumens are equivalent to real lumens.

Click to expand...

I am 100% convinced that Surefire Lumens are not real Lumens. Flashlight companies really can not state a single lumen value for a flashlight and call it an accurate rating. The exception being the case of very steadily regulated lights that spend almost their entire run operating within 10% of their initial output. (some lights do some don't, most SF lights have a steadily dimming output, LED and incan)

A Surefire lumen is a marketing placement number that happens to be torch lumen that will occur at some point during the discharge,. It does not occur on fresh cells or dead cells, but somewhere in the middle of that discharge. What I have observed is that some of their products are more heavily de-rated than others and it is purely related to the marketing position they are trying to create with the lumen value situation. (There is nothing wrong with this, product placement is important for consumers, moving the lumen values around to nice round numbers in a certain "order" is totally fine when ALL stated lumen values are in fact lower than you can expect to see)

Obviously, when a manufacture uses a nice "round" sounding number like 225, (be it fenix or surefire) it isn't because 225 is the number that popped up on their measuring equipment. It's a marketing choice to use round numbers. Surefire Took a light that starts off on fresh cells somewhere in the 250-275 torch lumen range, and ends somewhere around 175 torch lumens before falling on it's face, and called it a 225 lumen light. Fenix took a light who's emitter is rated to deliver some range of lumens (probably like 217-230@I) and called it 225 also.

To get an idea how I like to rate lumen values... check out the compatibility chart link in my sig line, these are torch lumen values fresh off the charger, followed by torch lumen values when the cells are about to "die." Personally I wish more manufactures would just post runtime plots, and pay to have an integrated sphere take a measurement of the light with fresh cells (then they could just correlate that to a lux measurement on a simple lux meter to make their runtime/output plots).. Some are starting to do this. We are seeing manufactures and distributors of lights in the marketplace with good charted information about their lights.

I saw a chart by chevrofreak where he rated the Fenix P3D Q5 at around 200 lumens with his light box. True, not a integration sphere, but I think his results should be pretty close.

The T1 is definitely a good chunk brighter than my T20 Q5, which is around the same brightness as the Fenix P3D Q5. It makes me wonder.

I still think it all boils down to which kind of beam your eyes prefer. There is no way I would choose to use my old M3 on the 225 lumen bulb over my T1. To me, the T1 just seems WAY brighter, especially in spill. Others would say I am nuts...also that since it is a led, I will not be able to tell a leaf from a brick in my path because of led's "poor color rendition" I like the "true" white light, so I dismiss this as "unenlightened nonsense" of course knowing that those incan people most likely still have rotary dial phones in their houses as well.

In truth, the old M3 may be brighter in real life...my eyes just can't see it, but I do not doubt that it could most likely be true.

To me, the T1 reminds me of my old 10 watt HID. I am not sure it is really that bright, but I feel like it is, so I am happy.

I will say, it impresses me at least as much as my old Tiablo Q5 light every time I push the button. That is all I can really want. I think it must be about 250 lumens!

~225 with a single press, this can't get better with its very reasonable price. So I don't care :twothumbs

so the fenix is 76 bucks and the surefire is 300? it doesnt sound like the dofference is worth over 200 dollars. what is the guarantee with fenix? i know surefire is unconditional.

I just received my T1 today. I turned it on in my room during the day and it didn't seem that bright. At night though, it lights up trees even 100 feet away quite nicely. It's throw is very good, not too tight. I don't know the lumen count of mine, but it's great at night. However, in the future I will go for something brighter that can light up a larger area. The spill on it is actually very useful.

If you take a bunch of your lights and light up the same spot with them to get around 300+ lumens, you notice it's not a very big deal. I think in a few years we'll all laugh at the little girly man lights we all think are so killer now.

Maybe we'll one day have contact lenses that put out 1000 lumens, superman style . No need to carry at night anymore.

NA8 said:

If you take a bunch of your lights and light up the same spot with them to get around 300+ lumens, you notice it's not a very big deal. I think in a few years we'll all laugh at the little girly man lights we all think are so killer now.

Click to expand...

Ok. I know this is an older thread... but I want to bring this up as a question... and just ask for you guys thoughts and opinions.

I am wondering how the 225lum. rating that Fenix gives the T1 is compared to like a SF G2/6p or whatever with a LF EO-9 and rechargeables... the EO-9 is rated at 320 lum...

Any thoughts?

(the reason I ask is that I have a 6p set up like that and am thinking of getting a T1)

Thanks guys!~

humboldtflyer said:

I am wondering how the 225lum. rating that Fenix gives the T1 is compared to like a SF G2/6p or whatever with a LF EO-9 and rechargeables... the EO-9 is rated at 320 lum...

Any thoughts?

(the reason I ask is that I have a 6p set up like that and am thinking of getting a T1)

Click to expand...

Facts: Lumens Factory rates their lamps with bulb lumens just like Fenix does, so it is reasonable to say that the 320 lumen E0-9 will be noticeably brighter than the T1.

Opinions: A 6P with a LF lamp and T1 are different lights to the point where a) output should not be the deciding factor between the two, and b) You could own and use both regularly.

Lumen Factory bulbs are rated for "bulb lumens", so multiply by .65 to arrive a surefire equivalent number.