BIG Lumens or BETTER Lumens?

Jack Reacher

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
129
Location
Melbourne Australia
Okay guys, I've almost nailed the iTP A6 Polestar as my first LED flashlight... :hairpull:

Then, today, reading through an Aussie site http://www.tinyurl.com.au/79h I happened to see these beam throw images:

Shed_sm.png

This shed is 25 metres (about 80 feet) from the flashlight, and is a pale sage-green colour. So ignore the colour temps below — they're probably way off.


iTPA6.png

This is the iTP A6 Polestar @ 700 (emitter?) lumens from 6xAA for ~90 minutes.


NitecoreD10.png

This is the Nitecore D10 @ 145 (emitter?) lumens from 1xAA for ~60 minutes.

The Polestar sells for $94-95.
The Nitecore sells for $71-95.

And remembering that this is my very first LED flashlight purchase, how can the (apparent) initial discrepancies between these two flashlights be explained? Considering all parameters: Dollar value; power source; illumination; mass; dimensions.

I do understand that at much longer ranges, the Polestar will (hopefully?) out-throw the Nitecore — say in the 100+ metre range (which I'm expecting to be my maximum 'working' range).

I note too that at the 25 metre distance, the spill-beam of the Nitecore is actually better than the Polestar (check the bush far-left middle of frame) which, to me, makes it a more 'workable' light in the mid-range distances.

Dunno... maybe I'm aiming (ouch!) too high with the Polestar? Maybe I should be looking at better quality of output — rather than just BIG numbers) flashlights with less lumen output in the $100 category? Have I fallen into the newbie trap of "WOW... 700 lumens... that light must be great!"

— Any thoughts guys? Jack.
 

jabe1

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
3,092
Location
Cleveland,Oh
You really can't judge by photos. My recommendation is to read all of the reviews, decide what you need (want) and go for it. If the light isn't what you expected... sell it on CPFMP.
Yes, the 700lm should reach alot farther than the 145lm, but try getting the A6 in a pocket comfortably!
 

F250XLT

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,385
Location
CA
Yes, the 700lm should reach alot farther than the 145lm, but try getting the A6 in a pocket comfortably!

More lumens does not always = more throw, it all depends on the emitter and reflector combination of each light. Also, not all manufacturers rate lumens the same way. While some are grossly over estimated, others are very conservative.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IMSabbel

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
Messages
921
Cameras use a gamma value in order to make the dynamic range "pop" more. You can easily see this in any RAW conversion program.

Judging from these JPGs, the hotspot is about twice as bright, and maybe 50% larger.
-> factor 4 of difference, just as expected.
 

jabe1

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
3,092
Location
Cleveland,Oh
More lumens does not always = more throw, it all depends on the emitter and reflector combination of each light. Also, not all manufacturers rate lumens the same way. While some are grossly over estimated, others are very conservative.

Agreed, I should have stated it light specific regarding the two choices here.
 

headophile

Enlightened
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
221
Location
metro manila, philippines
the pics don't look right. i'm not sure about the polestar but the fenix tk40 (similar aa-powered mce light) on turbo will be very noticeably brighter than the d10 in real life, both spill and hotspot.

also, i believe the polestar has more of a flood beam, even compared to the tk40 which isn't really a purpose-built thrower. i've seen a video of the two compared side by side somewhere on youtube.
 
Last edited:

JCD

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
892
Okay guys, I've almost nailed the iTP A6 Polestar as my first LED flashlight... :hairpull:

Then, today, reading through an Aussie site http://www.tinyurl.com.au/79h I happened to see these beam throw images:


The Polestar sells for $94-95.
The Nitecore sells for $71-95.

And remembering that this is my very first LED flashlight purchase, how can the (apparent) initial discrepancies between these two flashlights be explained? Considering all parameters: Dollar value; power source; illumination; mass; dimensions.

I do understand that at much longer ranges, the Polestar will (hopefully?) out-throw the Nitecore — say in the 100+ metre range (which I'm expecting to be my maximum 'working' range).

I note too that at the 25 metre distance, the spill-beam of the Nitecore is actually better than the Polestar (check the bush far-left middle of frame) which, to me, makes it a more 'workable' light in the mid-range distances.

Dunno... maybe I'm aiming (ouch!) too high with the Polestar? Maybe I should be looking at better quality of output — rather than just BIG numbers) flashlights with less lumen output in the $100 category? Have I fallen into the newbie trap of "WOW... 700 lumens... that light must be great!"

— Any thoughts guys? Jack.

700 lumens from a single MC-E emitter in a sub-$100 light stretches credulity.

Also, MC-E based lights are generally not known as good throwers without large reflectors. Expecting useful light at 100 meters or beyond isn't going to be realistic in most cases. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the Nitecore out throws the iTP. (My MC-E drop-in is handily out thrown by lights with 25 - 50% of the lumens.)

Take beam shots with a grain of salt. If you don't know the camera settings for each shot, they aren't very useful. And, just because the camera settings are identical for each light does not imply a meaningful comparison.
 

Dances with Flashlight

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
1,397
Location
Glendale, Arizona
Output numbers can be misleading, whether due to marketing hype or different measurement techniques and standards.

Light perception is subjective, and there are a lot of variables that might affect it - the emitter itself, the build quality of the light, optics, beam dispersion (throw v. flood), tint, rings & other artifacts, eyeball age, the nature of the areas or objects illuminated, etc.

I believe that most of the very "best" lights are known for the objective and subjective qualities of their build, or for their features, or for the subjective qualities of their output, rather than for their numbers.
 

WadeF

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,180
Location
Perkasie, PA
Do you know if those two photos were taken with the same camera settings? To me it looks like the Nitecore image was taken with a higher ISO. It looks grainier than the other shot. It's possible someone either used a different exposure, or altered the image to increase the exposure. They may have been going for similar looking exposures to show the beam profile rather than intensity.
 

jimmy1970

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
1,048
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Unfortunately Jack,

You have to buy a light and test it for yourself to get a proper feel for its' performance. The 'lumen search' is an understandable research method, however, OTF and emitter lumens can vary by up to 35%.

As the OP said, beam shots are pretty useless. I don't even bother looking at most of them unless I am trying to quantify beam quality re: rings etc.

Selfbuilt did a review of the itp A6 Polstar - :whistle:

Good luck in your selection,

James.....:)
 
Last edited:

garden

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
59
Hello Jack;

The iTP ratings are exaggerated.
The Nitecore ones are not.
The Fenix ones are not.

If you are looking at this class of light, then get the Fenix TK40. I have both the A6 and the TK40, and the TK40 totally destroys the A6 in outdoor performance. Up against a white wall, or ceiling bounce, or camera test, the TK40 still wins.

Furthermore, the A6 battery carrier is of horrible quality. With 6 batteries, one small mistake will permanently disable NiMHs or blow your face off with lithiums. You can wrongly place batteries in the D10 OR the TK40 and not get any negative results (other than the light failing to light up).

EDIT: The photos are not a reliable source of comparison for brightness; I'd say the A6 is about 500 Nitecore lumens, to give a more accurate comparison.

Also, the LD10 has about similar throw to the A6, so the D10 would only be slightly down against the A6.
 
Last edited:

Jimdo

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
68
Hi Garden,
I am going to preface what I am about to say with this, understand that I am not trying to say that you are in any way "wrong" about your assertion that ITP's lumen measurements are off and that Nitecores and Fenixs are on.

What I want to know however, is how do you "know" this to be the case. I realize that you have an ITP and a Fenix and in your opinion your Fenix outperforms your ITP. That is all fine and dandy, so to speak. But those are just two lights.... perhaps your ITP isn't like everyone elses ITP or perhaps your Fenix is far brighter than everyone elses Fenix.

My point with this is that an overreaching statement such as the one that you just made about ITP's lumen output and Fenixs and Nitecores without any kind of proof makes it a little off kilter.

Again, please understand that I am not trying to "pick a fight" or anything of the sort. I am trying to understand why you believe that ITP's lumen ratings are not "true" and why you believe that Fenix's and Nitecore's are "true" or "real" or whatever you want to call them.
 

SureAddicted

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
930
Location
Sydney, Australia
Hello Jack;

The iTP ratings are exaggerated.
The Nitecore ones are not.
The Fenix ones are not.

If you are looking at this class of light, then get the Fenix TK40. I have both the A6 and the TK40, and the TK40 totally destroys the A6 in outdoor performance. Up against a white wall, or ceiling bounce, or camera test, the TK40 still wins.

Furthermore, the A6 battery carrier is of horrible quality. With 6 batteries, one small mistake will permanently disable NiMHs or blow your face off with lithiums. You can wrongly place batteries in the D10 OR the TK40 and not get any negative results (other than the light failing to light up).

EDIT: The photos are not a reliable source of comparison for brightness; I'd say the A6 is about 500 Nitecore lumens, to give a more accurate comparison.

Also, the LD10 has about similar throw to the A6, so the D10 would only be slightly down against the A6.

I don't think iTP exaggerates their lumen figures. The A6 is nearly equal to the M30 in outdoor performance. The TK40 has a bigger, deeper reflector than the A6, common sense says it should a bit further than the A6. The battery carrier issue has been resolved, so it's basically a non issue. You say that using 6 batteries can lead to problems, the TK40 uses 8, and the reverse polarity issue is also an issue with the TK40. If you do place batteries the wrong way, you will run into problems with the TK40.

Jack, the A6 has a bigger reflector than the nitecore, so it should throw further. Them beamshots are misleading, because the spill on the A6 is helluva lot brighter than the nitecore.
I have to disagree with most about the A6 not being a good thrower. It does hold it's own ground very well. It is not a purpose built thrower, than again it's no slouch.
You can not compare pocket lights with lights such as the A6, TK40 etc, it just does not work that way.
 

selfbuilt

Flashaholic
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
7,005
Location
Canada
Jack, I wouldn't worry about those pics - I've checked the link, and they are all pretty clearly FUBAR. :sick:

My best guess is that the camera was set to automatic exposure (and color balance - some of the blue ones are quite amusing - but that's another story). As a result, every photo is done at different exposures, ISOs, etc. All you are really looking it is whether the hotspot is relatively tighly focussed or not - you can't tell a thing about relative outputs between pics. Frankly, I wish they would take them all down - the only thing worse than no data is completely misleading data!

Stick with objective comparison taken under identical conditions (e.g, my throw and output values :poke:). The ITP A6 and Nitecore D10 are such completely different lights that I don't think its meaningful to directly compare them anyway. Best to decide on a form factor first, and then match specific characteristics.

:wave:
 

gcbryan

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
2,473
Location
Seattle,WA
Jack, you may not want either light. You need to think about how you will be using it (what do you actually want the light to do).

If you are interested in throw then a MC-E in a small reflector is not going to be a good choice.

If you don't really need excessive throw and want good flood with a little mid-range throw then a MC-E might be a decent choice if it's in a 50mm reflector for instance. I couldn't find the reflector measurements for the ITP.

If you want throw you're generally looking a lights using XR-E's . I'm not actually that knowledgeable about the XP-E's however. I'm guessing the have beam angles like XP-G's but I don't know and I don't know about the surface brightness of the emitter. I think XR-E's still win that battle.

In a word you might be going about this the wrong way.
 

kramer5150

Flashaholic
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
6,328
Location
Palo Alto, CA
Pics were CLEARLY taken with an auto f-stop or auto-exposure.

The polestar is a legit ~450L, and should appear significantly brighter than any ~120 Lumen 1AA light. Theres also the possibility that the pic was taken with crappy alkaline AAs. A high current MCE is not going to perform with Alkaline cells.

My 600 Lumen MAG-1185 blows away my 210 Lumen malkoff M60, in person. Here are 2 pics taken with an auto-exposure point and shoot. The camera significantly brightens the Malkoff to make it appear brighter than it really is, relative to the 1185.

dscn2795v.jpg


dscn2800v.jpg
 
Last edited:

JCD

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
892
Jack, the A6 has a bigger reflector than the nitecore, so it should throw further.

Besides reflector size, surface brightness is also an important factor determining throw. The surface brightness of the MC-E isn't as high as many common single die emitters, even though it has a higher flux value. That's one of the reasons MC-E emitters generally do not have a reputation for lots of throw.
 

SureAddicted

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
930
Location
Sydney, Australia
That's one of the reasons MC-E emitters generally do not have a reputation for lots of throw.

Well, you say that, but most know that the Jetbeam M1X is a thrower, and it's also and MC-E, it also has a larger reflector than say an A6. I do believe the reflector has a major role when it comes to throw.
 

gcbryan

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
2,473
Location
Seattle,WA
Well, you say that, but most know that the Jetbeam M1X is a thrower, and it's also and MC-E, it also has a larger reflector than say an A6. I do believe the reflector has a major role when it comes to throw.

The emitter surface brightness has the largest role and then it's the reflector/optics.

If you have greater surface brightness in an emitter that will throw further than one with lesser surface brightness. If they are close then adding a larger reflector could mean the difference.

Most XR-E's are going to throw further than most XP-G's unless the XR-E is in a keychain light and the XP-G is in a 100mm reflector.

Throw is determined by both emitter surface brightness and the reflector diameter and practically speaking that's about it.

If you have a MC-E and want it to throw further then going to a larger diameter reflector is about all that you can do (along with driving it harder). However, if you did the same thing with a XR-E it would throw further.
 

JCD

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
892
Well, you say that, but most know that the Jetbeam M1X is a thrower, and it's also and MC-E, it also has a larger reflector than say an A6. I do believe the reflector has a major role when it comes to throw.

Yes, the reflector plays a major role when it comes to throw. Surface brightness also plays a major role. The MC-E does not have high surface brightness, and consequently, it isn't generally known for its throw.
 
Top