Have any lights that seemed great at first, but became disappointing later?

HighlanderNorth · Jan 11, 2013

Usually when we read reviews of lights, or of most products, the reviews are done shortly after a person receives the product so that the reviews is based mostly on a first impression, not on medium to long term experience with a product. thats certainly the case with most flashlight reviews where people receive a light, and they do an unboxing review, or they take the light outside that first night, check it out and do a review afterwards. Some people wait a few days or weeks, but most reviews seem to be very soon after the light is received.

I wish there were more reviews of lights(or other products) that are done after the person has owned the light for some time and been able to objectively discern the strengths and weaknesses of the light after using it for a while. That may be a little less practical with modern LED lights because new models come and go so quickly due to constantly improving technology, that doing a review 1.5 years later might be irrelevant because that light might have become outdated and replaced by a new model. But nonetheless, making reviews after using the light for 2-4 months would be nice, and practical.

Have there been any lights you've bought that you liked at first, but later on they either developed problems or didnt hold up well, or just didnt meet your expectations for whatever reason?

mcnair55 · Jan 11, 2013

Think you are onto a good idea with this thread,seems many want there hands on the latest light as soon as it is possible to grab one.The one light I seem to like one day and dislike another is the Nitecore EZAA,I honestly cannot put my finger on the reason.

As a bought light I like as much now as I did when I bought it would be a Fenix LD10 R4,really a nice to use light.

GunnarGG · Jan 11, 2013

Most of the lights that I have bought I still like one way or another.
There are many lights that I hardly use but that doesn't mean I don't like them
Like my 6P + M61LW is really nice but for most of my use my little Zebralight SC30 is more useful.

I also have cheaper lights that are not so great but as long as they do what I expected them to do I like them to.

Trying to find a dissapointment that should be my Quark mini AA NW. It has so much threadplay and modeskipping that it is a pain to use.
I expected a little more from that light when I ordered it. It's in the car as a backup for backup now.

I also had an Osram 1xAAA that I bought in a shop here in Sweden that was really crap.
I knew when I bought it that it wouldn't be the greatest but any 1 dollar light from DX would be ten times better.
It just fell apart and the plastic body cracked.

I also have a LD10 - it's a great little light!

reppans · Jan 11, 2013

My Zebralights - after learning how to use a DSLR as an ambient lumen meter. My other brands moved up though.

blah9 · Jan 11, 2013

Back when I first got a couple LED Lenser lights I was very pleased with them, but once I found out about the many other regulated lights that exist I became very disappointed in them.

cerbie · Jan 11, 2013

Every Nitecore and Jetbeam. The niggles would just grow. Not a problem of toughness, or workmanship, but lack of thorough sufficient thought put into design. A reflector that makes 150lm no better than a good 50lm torch here, not enough features to grip on there, accidental mode switching too easy on another, PWM flicker on another one, and so on, and so forth.

I would get the cool whiz-bang light, and carry it. But, after awhile, the one I would reach for to really use would be a Fenix, Inova, Icon, or Streamlight. Over time, Inova and Icon have stayed in my regular EDC rotation, with Fenix as tool bag beaters (or the X5 as a tool-beater in the bag...how they made Al tubes that freaking tough, without being too brittle, is beyond me).

HighlanderNorth · Jan 13, 2013

reppans said:
My Zebralights - after learning how to use a DSLR as an ambient lumen meter. My other brands moved up though.

I thought the Zebralights had one of the most genuine and accurate brightness ratings, and were brighter than many other lights out there using the same batteries. Why did you become disappointed in them after learning to use a DSLR to measure brightness?

Jash · Jan 13, 2013

My more expensive lights ($100+). When I first became interested in flashlights I would regularly spend $100-$150 for a new light because that's what I thought was best.

Now, my $25 Fenix E11 is one of my most used and most appreciated lights.

Inline6Silvia · Jan 13, 2013

Patriot that is on this board did a video of the Microstream with a 10440 battery. He said in his vid he didn't want to throw the battery in and then make a video so he made the video months after running the 10440. I thought that was pretty cool and it was one of the deciding factors that made me go out and buy a 10440 for my Microstream

reppans · Jan 13, 2013

HighlanderNorth said:
I thought the Zebralights had one of the most genuine and accurate brightness ratings, and were brighter than many other lights out there using the same batteries. Why did you become disappointed in them after learning to use a DSLR to measure brightness?

From my tests with a lumen meter and stopwatch, the SC52, for example:
- Uses a lumen scale ~ 30% more lenient than its direct competitors in the AA/14500/XML/sub-lumen category (47s, ET, TN).
- Includes battery surface charge, in its rating (ie, ultra-freshly charged Eneloops over 1.4Vs immediately off the charger), while the others companies don't seem to.
- Comes in around 20-25% short on its high/max runtimes, while the others meet theirs. All three appear about equally "efficient". ZL was ~25% brighter than then QAAX, but had 20% less runtime. Dead even on high mode, same lumens and runtime vs D25A, although spec'd @ 108lms/3hrs vs 75/2.5.
- Provides 1/2 to 1/3 the specified lumens on its L modes to double to triple the specified runtimes (I find this particularly slimy).

As an example of the first two items, this is from Selfbuilt's test of the Neutron 1A CLICKY. The SC51 is rated at 200 and SB tests it at 200; the N1A is rated at 145 and SB tests it 240. For more examples, Selfbuilt's test of the Quark AA2-X and the entire D25 Clicky series show these lights to also be "under-rated," by ~100 lumens. Selfbuilt specifically disclaims his numbers as accurate or official - just consistent and correct on a relative basis... I agree.

Compare the spec sheets of the Quark AA2-X against the SC52, it's almost a perfect match in lumens with the SC claiming to be more efficient in 4 out of 5 modes. Even considering the Alk vs Eneloop battery difference, just compare these 2 lights side by side, and you'll see what I mean.

StandardBattery · Jan 13, 2013

reppans said:
My Zebralights - after learning how to use a DSLR as an ambient lumen meter. My other brands moved up though.

You don't like your Zebralights because of some reading your getting on some instrument? Amazing that it has prevented your vision from being able to benefit from the illumination provided by these lights, in the same way it was prior to your enlightenment in DSLR usage.

mcnair55 · Jan 13, 2013

StandardBattery said:
You don't like your Zebralights because of some reading your getting on some instrument? Amazing that it has prevented your vision from being able to benefit from the illumination provided by these lights, in the same way it was prior to your enlightenment in DSLR usage.

This is sad to read,surely you rely on your own perception of a light,you do not need no meter do you?Every one else raves about Zebra.

I am as shocked as StandardBattery seems to be.

reppans · Jan 13, 2013

StandardBattery said:
You don't like your Zebralights because of some reading your getting on some instrument? Amazing that it has prevented your vision from being able to benefit from the illumination provided by these lights, in the same way it was prior to your enlightenment in DSLR usage.

I had my suspicions with a previous ZL, obviously... the lumen meter just confirmed them and showed me a few more things.

Don't get me wrong.... I've said a number of times in the various SC52 threads that this is arguably the best AA currently out there (marginally at least). But it is nowhere near twice as bright, nor twice as efficient, as a comparison of the listed specs with the other competitors in the AA/14500/XML/sub-lumen market would lead you to believe.

YMMV, but I consider that to be unscrupulous behavior, and along with not stand behind its own products (shortest warranty, questionable CS), for me, it really drags down what is otherwise a great product to merely average. So absolutely, it is a big disappointment for me.

campingnut · Jan 13, 2013

Let the fire and brimstone begin...I ended up trading my HDS Rotary after owning it for about a year. I love the light; quality of build, light output, and UI was spectacular, not to mention the fact they are indestructible. I could not EDC a light without a clip ( I do not like hanging with para cord/clip). Thus, the trade. I do plan on buying a clicky soon

TEEJ · Jan 13, 2013

reppans said:
I had my suspicions with a previous ZL, obviously... the lumen meter just confirmed them and showed me a few more things.

I've never seen a lumen meter. I've seen lux meters, and light meters that measure lux, but never one that measures lumens.

Could you post a picture of it?

HighlanderNorth · Jan 13, 2013

reppans said:
From my tests with a lumen meter and stopwatch, the SC52, for example:
- Uses a lumen scale ~ 30% more lenient than its direct competitors in the AA/14500/XML/sub-lumen category (47s, ET, TN).
- Includes battery surface charge, in its rating (ie, ultra-freshly charged Eneloops over 1.4Vs immediately off the charger), while the others companies don't seem to.
- Comes in around 20-25% short on its high/max runtimes, while the others meet theirs. All three appear about equally "efficient". ZL was ~25% brighter than then QAAX, but had 20% less runtime. Dead even on high mode, same lumens and runtime vs D25A, although spec'd @ 108lms/3hrs vs 75/2.5.
- Provides 1/2 to 1/3 the specified lumens on its L modes to double to triple the specified runtimes (I find this particularly slimy).

As an example of the first two items, this is from Selfbuilt's test of the Neutron 1A CLICKY. The SC51 is rated at 200 and SB tests it at 200; the N1A is rated at 145 and SB tests it 240. For more examples, Selfbuilt's test of the Quark AA2-X and the entire D25 Clicky series show these lights to also be "under-rated," by ~100 lumens. Selfbuilt specifically disclaims his numbers as accurate or official - just consistent and correct on a relative basis... I agree.

Compare the spec sheets of the Quark AA2-X against the SC52, it's almost a perfect match in lumens with the SC claiming to be more efficient in 4 out of 5 modes. Even considering the Alk vs Eneloop battery difference, just compare these 2 lights side by side, and you'll see what I mean.

I agree that it would be slimy if ZL intentionally dropped their low output in order to be able to advertise higher run times, if it fact it was intentional. I'm surprised that companies like Thrunite would make a light, advertise it at only 145L, even though it puts out 240! You'd have to think that maybe some arent as bright as others, or I guess its a possibility that they, and the Quark/ET D25 series lights that Selfbuilt received could have been "souped up" examples sent to him specifically for review knowing that he'd do these tests, and it would 'shine a more favorable light' on their products through the review.

But I also have to point out that the AA2-X is a 2-AA light, as opposed to the SC52 which is a 1-AA light, so I wouldnt be surprised to see that the SC52 isnt as efficient, even though its disappointing to see ZL try to claim that it is as efficient as a 2-AA light.

I really dont see why they feel they need to embellish and exaggerate their specs and claims because its already a good light that was going to sell well anyway, so why take the chance of turning people off by doing that? I wasnt aware of that stuff til after I bought the light, so it didnt effect my decision to buy, but maybe it would have if I had read that stuff before I ordered it way back in October.

TEEJ · Jan 13, 2013

Hmmm, not really for general lights.

I tend to do a lot of research, or buy impulsively, or something in between...but in ALL cases I have expectations based upon what I have to work with info-wise.

So if I buy something that the 0.0002 seconds of research deemed to be potentially useful for a particular reason, and my BS detector filtered that and decided to go for it...its usually right. I have had it go the other way though, where I DIDN'T have high expectations...and I was pleasantly surprised.

An example was the DRY 3 XML. I thought it would be moderately bright, with 3 direct drive XML's, and a POS as far as quality....and tried it for sheets and geegles.

Well, the brightness blew me away, it lit up more than the TM11 along side it for example...and while not exactly built like a swiss watch, a few solder points needed some TLV, etc....it wasn't hopeless quality-wise. It earned a spot in the spare flooder bag.

My trial and error based UV lights are another story entirely, as I keep finding UV lights that don't really do the job, or, which work great, for a while, then start to fail.

I can't say I have "found" the UV lights I need. The Tanklight based version was closest, and recently, it too started to go wonky, and need whacks to light, etc.

The reason is that the lights do get beat up, and, also need a lot of power, as well as throw/flood.

Most are too anemic.

reppans · Jan 13, 2013

HighlanderNorth said:
I agree that it would be slimy if ZL intentionally dropped their low output in order to be able to advertise higher run times, if it fact it was intentional. I'm surprised that companies like Thrunite would make a light, advertise it at only 145L, even though it puts out 240! You'd have to think that maybe some arent as bright as others, or I guess its a possibility that they, and the Quark/ET D25 series lights that Selfbuilt received could have been "souped up" examples sent to him specifically for review knowing that he'd do these tests, and it would 'shine a more favorable light' on their products through the review.

But I also have to point out that the AA2-X is a 2-AA light, as opposed to the SC52 which is a 1-AA light, so I wouldnt be surprised to see that the SC52 isnt as efficient, even though its disappointing to see ZL try to claim that it is as efficient as a 2-AA light.

I really dont see why they feel they need to embellish and exaggerate their specs and claims because its already a good light that was going to sell well anyway, so why take the chance of turning people off by doing that? I wasnt aware of that stuff til after I bought the light, so it didnt effect my decision to buy, but maybe it would have if I had read that stuff before I ordered it way back in October.

Regarding Selfbuilt's numbers, here's a quote from his website:
"In any case, I still make no claim to the accurate lumen estimate accuracy. But the runtime graphs remain a well-calibrated and internally-consistent relative set of results from my testing, using only new batteries properly examined for relative performance."

He's not saying the 145 Thrunite light should actually be 240, he is just saying "on my scale, it would be...." The real question is, is the ThruSevensTac lumen scale too conservative, or is the ZebraBuilt scale too liberal? (See GG link below.) However, if I were in SB's shoes, I absolutely would use a liberal scale too since it is far, far better to give good, and great, news than it is give bad news.

As far as sending SB souped-up lights, that's what I originally thought about ZL a couple of years ago, since I certainly couldn't see how my H51w 172 lm was anywhere near my 2xAAs which were around 180 lumens. Now, I'm scratching my head again for the exact same reasons at the 280 mark. My "ambient lumen measurements" (for TEEJ) are reasonably consistent with SB... he's just raising ThruSevensTac numbers up to a ZebraBuilt scale and I'm bringing the ZL numbers down to a ThruSevensTac scale.

Just to put this scale question in wider perspective, HERE is GoingGear's site filtered on XML/2xAA lights - to your point, with which I agree, do you really think the SC52 can go head to head with everyone else's 2XAAs, for max lumens, and runtime efficiency? In my test's the SC was right in line with the single-cell Quark and D25 XMLs runtime/efficiency, albeit brighter at the cost of runtime on max. Try filtering on 1xAA too.

On intentionally lowering lumens to triple runtime? I dunno, the math sure works out to the equivalent of the Quark (1/3 lms, 3x runtime) assuming they're equally efficient there (I didn't test) - the mistake would have to be the 0.34 spec because my SC measures 0.10 lm, actually a hair lower than my 0.09 TN firefly. The 2.7 low is off by nearly the same.... pretty major unintentional mistakes, if you ask me.... but perhaps my unit is defective? Anyone care to verify if their SC52 0.34 lms is about the same as QAAX, or D25AX? If mine's in fact defective, then the SC might just be 3x more efficient than the Quark or D25 on its L modes.

Why would ZL do such a thing? Well, someone PM'd me that it was coming from their headlamp beginnings having to compete with the likes of Petzl and Black Diamond with their BS specs. Anyways, I see little reputation loss, few seem to believe me anyways. I guess ignorance is bliss as they say...

HighlanderNorth · Jan 14, 2013

reppans said:
Regarding Selfbuilt's numbers, here's a quote from his website:
"In any case, I still make no claim to the accurate lumen estimate accuracy. But the runtime graphs remain a well-calibrated and internally-consistent relative set of results from my testing, using only new batteries properly examined for relative performance."

He's not saying the 145 Thrunite light should actually be 240, he is just saying "on my scale, it would be...." The real question is, is the ThruSevensTac lumen scale too conservative, or is the ZebraBuilt scale too liberal? (See GG link below.) However, if I were in SB's shoes, I absolutely would use a liberal scale too since it is far, far better to give good, and great, news than it is give bad news.

As far as sending SB souped-up lights, that's what I originally thought about ZL a couple of years ago, since I certainly couldn't see how my H51w 172 lm was anywhere near my 2xAAs which were around 180 lumens. Now, I'm scratching my head again for the exact same reasons at the 280 mark. My "ambient lumen measurements" (for TEEJ) are reasonably consistent with SB... he's just raising ThruSevensTac numbers up to a ZebraBuilt scale and I'm bringing the ZL numbers down to a ThruSevensTac scale.

Just to put this scale question in wider perspective, HERE is GoingGear's site filtered on XML/2xAA lights - to your point, with which I agree, do you really think the SC52 can go head to head with everyone else's 2XAAs, for max lumens, and runtime efficiency? In my test's the SC was right in line with the single-cell Quark and D25 XMLs runtime/efficiency, albeit brighter at the cost of runtime on max. Try filtering on 1xAA too.

On intentionally lowering lumens to triple runtime? I dunno, the math sure works out to the equivalent of the Quark (1/3 lms, 3x runtime) assuming they're equally efficient there (I didn't test) - the mistake would have to be the 0.34 spec because my SC measures 0.10 lm, actually a hair lower than my 0.09 TN firefly. The 2.7 low is off by nearly the same.... pretty major unintentional mistakes, if you ask me.... but perhaps my unit is defective? Anyone care to verify if their SC52 0.34 lms is about the same as QAAX, or D25AX? If mine's in fact defective, then the SC might just be 3x more efficient than the Quark or D25 on its L modes.

Why would ZL do such a thing? Well, someone PM'd me that it was coming from their headlamp beginnings having to compete with the likes of Petzl and Black Diamond with their BS specs. Anyways, I see little reputation loss, few seem to believe me anyways. I guess ignorance is bliss as they say...

Not to drag this subject out forever, but I would find it hard to believe that they would somehow be able to produce a light that can run at a certain brightness, albeit a very low brightness level, and yet have triple the run times of another light with the same battery and LED. I just dont know that I buy the idea that efficiency can be tripled just through the simple circuitry.....But maybe I'm wrong, actually, hopefully I'm wrong! But also, maybe its just more realistic and its easier to increase efficiency at much lower brightness levels than it is at higher levels, but I'm just speculating here, so maybe someone more knowledgeable about this can chime in on that...........(?)

TEEJ · Jan 14, 2013

IIRC, for VERY low output, sub-lumen, etc, the circuitry and paths CAN make an enormous difference in runtime. It might be analogous to like incans on dimmer switches. If you turn the dimmer way down, say to make the light as dim as it will go, the electricity used is not proportionally reduced. I don't remember the specific numbers, but for example, making the light 1/2 as bright might still use 3/4 power, etc.

Have any lights that seemed great at first, but became disappointing later?

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashlight Enthusiast

Enlightened

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashlight Enthusiast

Enlightened

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashlight Enthusiast

Newly Enlightened

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashlight Enthusiast

Enlightened

Flashaholic

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashaholic

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashaholic

Similar threads