I just got a Shiningbeam Caveman in the mail, and put in 2 freshly charged AA NIMH's to start playing with it. The quality on this light seems top notch, and I love the size and feel of it. The output is a bit dissappointing, however. It is rated at 290 lumens max, but now I am wondering if that is out the front, or at the emitter. Now so far, all I have done is do beam shots on the wall, but this light appears no brighter than my Fenix E21 which is rated 150 lumens out the front. Even if the Caveman IS 290 lumens from the emitter, it should still outshine my Fenix. I realize it should not blow it away, but it should be noticable. I was just now looking at a Quark AA XML tactical on Four Sevens webpage, and they state that is 280 lumens out the front. Maybe that is the light I should have purchased. Does anybody own both of these lights where they have seen an actual side by side comparison? I do plan on contacting Shiningbeam about this, but thought I would get some feedback from the forum beforehand. Thanks in advance for any information or enlightenment you can provide! :thumbsup:
Question about the Shiningbeam Caveman and the Quark AA2 Tactical XML
- Thread starter mikekoz
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
magnum70383
Enlightened
i only have the quark. its insanely bright for 2 aa! more flood than i expected
Overclocker
Flashlight Enthusiast
selfbuilt estimates the quark x AA2 at 400 lumens before step-down. it's bright 
the 280 quoted by 4sevens is after the stepdown
the 280 quoted by 4sevens is after the stepdown
jonnyfgroove
Enlightened
It looks like high level on the Shiningbeam is 700ma. This makes sense though when I look at the runtime graph - flat regulation on high using alkalines. Seems like a very useful light.
Thanks for the reply, but I do not question the lights usefullness or build quality. However, if the light is putting out 150 lumens and is being advertised as 290, that is a problem!
jonnyfgroove
Enlightened
I should have stated more clearly, the 290 must be emitter lumens. Try a ceiling bounce test.
I just went outside in our backyard and compared the Caveman with the Fenix E21. There is no significant difference in brightness between these two lights. Since I know the Fenix uses ANSI standards on its lights, I can only come to the conclusion that the Caveman is about 150 lumens out the front. This does not make it a bad light. The build quality, runtime, regulation on the light is top notch. What this means is the way the light is advertised is a bit misleading. Hopefully this information will help somebody else considering the purchase of the Caveman.
A few other things to consider.
- Our perception of brightness is subject to a square law. While 290 vs 150 is a 93% increase, it would only be perceived as a 39% increase in brightness to ours eyes. That should be noticeable, but not by a lot.
- Floody vs Throwy beams can confusing things, have you tried the ceiling bounce test?
- Slightly different tints can also throw things off.
I have the Quark X and running it on 1xEneloop should be 115 lumens, and I can't tell the difference to my 172 lumen Zebralight H51w on the same batt., ceiling bounce test.
- Our perception of brightness is subject to a square law. While 290 vs 150 is a 93% increase, it would only be perceived as a 39% increase in brightness to ours eyes. That should be noticeable, but not by a lot.
- Floody vs Throwy beams can confusing things, have you tried the ceiling bounce test?
- Slightly different tints can also throw things off.
I have the Quark X and running it on 1xEneloop should be 115 lumens, and I can't tell the difference to my 172 lumen Zebralight H51w on the same batt., ceiling bounce test.
As others have noted, I would be careful how you compare the light output of the Caveman and the Fenix E21: The E21 uses an XP-E LED with a tight focused beam for maximum throw; 4510 cd intensity, 134 meter throw. (I have this light and the tight beam does appear much brighter than it's 150 lumen would suggest.) As example, I also have an ITP SA2 with XP-G rated a max of 230 OTF lumens. The E21 'appears' as bright for the well focused hot spot.
The XP-G (and more-so the XM-L in your caveman) being a larger led, will tend to have a larger hot spot, spreading those extra lumens over a wider area.
As already noted, try the 'ceiling bounce' test to better estimate total lumens.
Bryan has good info on the Caveman at shiningbeam; The high is putting 700mA into the XM-L T6, and the 290 lumens would match the CREE spec for emitter lumens, not OTF.
I suspect your Caveman is performing to spec.
The XP-G (and more-so the XM-L in your caveman) being a larger led, will tend to have a larger hot spot, spreading those extra lumens over a wider area.
As already noted, try the 'ceiling bounce' test to better estimate total lumens.
Bryan has good info on the Caveman at shiningbeam; The high is putting 700mA into the XM-L T6, and the 290 lumens would match the CREE spec for emitter lumens, not OTF.
I suspect your Caveman is performing to spec.
I had (before it died on the operating table) an E20, which used an XR-E Q5. That light could punch above its weight, don't underestimate the visual impact of a tight beam. It definitely "outperformed" a lot of XP-G lights that were listed as 80-100 lumens brighter.
I was just informed that the Caveman XML T6 is about 217 lumens OTF. 290 is the rating from the emitter, which makes sense. I would not let that stop you from buying the light! It is a fine tool and just seems to scream quality! It may just become my fav 2AA light!
I have both lights. The Caveman is indestructable. The Quark fits my pocket better. Standard forum advice applies: get both. You won't be disappointed.
