Brightness or Runtime?

When I read that the XP-G2 was up to 20% more efficient than the XP-G, I hoped that this just might translate to 20% longer run time. And it might. But based on the advertisements for new flashlights I've seen over the years, manufacturers regard us flashaholics as totally addicted to lumens. You simply can't have too many lumens, even if the flashlight sucks your battery dry in 35 minutes and nearly burns your hand in the process. But are we really addicted to lumens or are they just telling us we are?

If I drop in an XP-G2 R5 to my Eagletac T20C2 MkII, I'll get an additional 60 lumens or so. I'm not the least bit interested. But if the drive circuit were modified to generate the same 300 lumens it currently produces, I'd get an additional 20 minutes of run time with the XP-G2. Can the eye readily detect the difference between 300 and 360 lumen? I don't think so. The reason I am posting this is to elicit opinions on this issue. Maybe it will interest manufacturers who visit these pages. I mean, is it just me who would prefer longer run time to an increase in brightness, or are there others?

It depends.



But seriously, I want as much runtime as possible from my lights given that I have enough light to do what I want. A headlamp, for example, is going to be run at a relatively lower output for longer periods of time. I don't need 300+ lumens to set up my tent, chop firewood, read a book, or cook dinner, but I do need runtime for those activities. The less often I have to change batteries, the happier I am. With EDCs and headlamps I care more about runtime than output as long as the latter is enough for the task.

From a business perspective, I expect lumens sell. I know I love the WOW factor, but I rarely use my lights at max output for more than a few minutes at a time. To borrow an old phrase: people buy lumens, but use runtime.

RUNTIME.

It's the reason I want an xp-g2 put into the Fenix TK11 with exactly the same brightnesses as the R5 version has (and maybe the lossless op reflector). It's bright as heck now and it would make it run cooler and longer. Who doesn't want that.

The lumen war like any other stupid electronics war (take the digital camera MP war which is finally subsiding) is just dumb and nobody needs a 1000 lumen pocket rocket. I'd much rather have a light that I know will come on at say 250 lumens and run all night than a 500 lumen light that goes dim in a few minutes lol.

I say Brightness.

I like a whole lot of brightness in a small package. Of course more brightness will have less runtime but I'm ok with that.
Do say that a runtime below 1 hour is useless. I want minimal 1 hour on the highest setting.

Manufacturers won't change anything over this. It's been said many times, before. The HDS EDC, now over 8 years old, is still ahead of its time.

Most multimode torches use fixed resistors per mode, so they can't just change a few values in software, to keep all but highest mode the same as last time, but with more battery life. That means needing to have dedicated driver runs for the new LEDs, each time they change, which is going to be a fairly significant cost.

Brightness.

All of my lights have at least a low mode, and may have bright, medium, and low modes.
If I want more run-time, I can just use it on medium or low. If I want to run high mode for longer, I have more batteries.
Besides that, nearly all my lights have interchangeable "Lego-able" bodies, so if I want to carry the long body with 2 x 18650, then I can just put that one on. Plenty of run time then.

I think that part of the problem is that some people have lights which are just fixed format, and are not flexible in these important ways, so they feel limited.
I don't feel limited for run time or brightness.
If I choose to use my high output lights with a very small battery body for most compact carry, I use the light suitably for the battery capacity I have in it. And in those cases, I have a spare battery or two with me, in case I need them. A spare battery in a little zip-loc bag is not exactly dragging a millstone around.

So, for me, I'll take brighter output, and I can manage my run time or carry extra batteries.

Don't know yet.

Been debating this one for years...

With a multi-mode light (3 or more), you can have both.

Given that we already have long runtime modes in just about every light, it makes sense, to me, that manufacturers would focus more on brightness these days. If I need long runtime, I just lower the mode.

rlichter said:

...Can the eye readily detect the difference between 300 and 360 lumen?...

Click to expand...

Sure. Your eyes will usually see more with more light to work with. The question is whether your brain will 'detect the difference' and in the stated case I doubt it. Your eyes may see more (and that's good) but your pattern matching brain won't let you consciously notice the smaller changes, which are more likely to register as noise and not be passed on.

That's what is so nice about fully digital regulation/advances in driver circuits coupled with more sophisticated, user programmable interfaces - you can have a very bright, full-on capability, but have lots of options as to alternate modes to best match your exact output needs so as to maximize your runtime. (Zebralight come to mind as a perfect example.)

Johnno said:

That's what is so nice about fully digital regulation/advances in driver circuits coupled with more sophisticated, user programmable interfaces - you can have a very bright, full-on capability, but have lots of options as to alternate modes to best match your exact output needs so as to maximize your runtime. (Zebralight come to mind as a perfect example.)

Click to expand...

I also immediately thought of Zebralight when reading the original post. I like their lights mostly because of their interface, practically perfect regulation, and extremely high efficiency. I feel like they don't make the user choose between efficiency and brightness, at least for the most common uses. (I'm thinking of the SC600 specifically - it appears to me to be one of the most efficient 1 x 18650 lights available, and it's no slouch in terms of output.)

I guess my view on it is that with many lights the "turbo" is already way overkill in my opinion. I'd rather have a 2 mode light that has say 50 and then 300 lumens that both have great run times on each respective mode vs. a similar light that has 50 and then 600 lumens with the latter mode not running that long at all.

Of course in another five years what I'm typing here will be irrelevant because the lumens/runtimes by then will be insane on the latest emitters. I guess it gets to the fact that I don't like every light these days to have 5 different modes. I love 2 mode lights that have super easy access to either mode.

Meh... lol

With the use of easily swappable lithium ion rechargeable cells....run time is far less of an issue than when using disposable/primaries etc.

Most light makers see 1-3 hours of run time as reasonable, depending on the type of light...and use that as a baseline. If they get a boost in efficiency, they increase brightness just enough to still preserve the prior run time, etc.

As the supply of lumens grows, the use of floodier beams becomes practical. Most people are better served by a floody beam, as its illuminates what they are doing more naturally.

As beams become floodier, the number of lumens NEEDED to have the equivalent lux grows proportionally.

If you go back far enough, it was impossible to read with the average 100 lumen flashlight...as the beams had to be very concentrated to be able to project any distance....and that 100 lumens would glare on a page if shined on at practical distances...making reading hard.

With a floody beam, 100 lumens is sometime to DIM to read for a long time by...using the recommended/published lux levels for reading and other tasks....and doesn't glare, etc.

So, they go for the lumens....as lumens make it all work better.

You are not alone. I just purchased a 120 lumen HDS, and am very happy with the output. However, it is a high cri so that limits my emitter selection. I used to be addicted to lumens when emitters put out a measly 80 lumens. Since then, I have learned to get a bigger light if I need more than around 120 lumens, and have multiple levels on all my lights if possible. 120 lumens is more than plenty for 95% of what I do.

@TEEJ, very, very well stated.

I agree 100%.

Was walking through dark, empty halls this evening, and my XM-L was floody but seemed dim.

The same lumens in an XP-G format would have resulted in higher lux, a tighter beam, and an apparently brighter light.

[h=2]Brightness or Runtime?[/h]

Click to expand...

I say yes to both .....LOL When I first started I wanted quality lights (Iam still new to lights) then it became a brightness issue , then I wanted longer run times , now its tints.
I dont know where it all ends ...........I have alot to learn yet ...........so I read and then reread , because I forget stuff ....LOL

djdawg said:

I say yes to both .....LOL When I first started I wanted quality lights (Iam still new to lights) then it became a brightness issue , then I wanted longer run times , now its tints.
I dont know where it all ends ...........I have alot to learn yet ...........so I read and then reread , because I forget stuff ....LOL

Click to expand...

I didn't even know there were different tints until I bought my PD32UE. Then I started noticing how some other lights are very blue, and it bothers me. lol.

I use my lights mostly for working on cars, indoors, and walking the dog, so brightness is all I really care about. I would like one or two lights with really good runtimes for emergencies though.

I was about to say runtime until I read what twl said above and I kind of have to agree with twl. I do love having a light with great runtime, especially in the outdoors under the rain. Btw, I am in the tropics so rain is quite common over here. Whenever it rains, I really wouldn't want to mess around trying to change out the batteries in my lights. I usually resort to using lower output just to conserve the battery power for as long as possible to hold out till the rain recedes. With this in mind, I would say yes, I do need runtime but since I don't usually use my lights on the highest output all the time, it really is not necessary to have a higher runtime on high. Give me the extra lumens then. I just received the Tri-EDC from Mac with XP-G2 emitters in it and this thing is crazy bright at about 800 lumens for its compact size. Runtime? Only a mere 15 to 18 minutes but I could always use it on the lowest output for 26 hours, or medium for 1 hour, both of which is plenty bright enough for almost 100% of what I needed a light for. The highest 800 lumen output is just there for the 'Wow!' factor but it is still good to have in the event I needed it.

rlichter said:

When I read that the XP-G2 was up to 20% more efficient than the XP-G, I hoped that this just might translate to 20% longer run time.

Click to expand...

I had hoped for this as well, but looking at e.g. the 2013 Fenix catalogue that is floating around somewhere it appears we're only getting more lumens, for now at least. I could also settle for ca. 10% more brightness and 5-10% more battery life in the turbo mode, but up to 20% more battery life on the low and medium modes (I use these modes most often and really don't need them to be higher).

Hopefully we'll see some improved circuitry once the XP-G2 and XM-L2 become more settled.

Reworking the driver is much more involved than replacing a single component. I'd love to see it happen, but it won't be as fast as the LED swap. +1 for the lumens race, as it's an easily-sold number.