Too Many Closely Spaced Levels?

While up to five output levels may not be too many, too often they're too close and lack low options. Understandably, an 800 lumen light of a "larger" bodied size may rarely be called upon for low lighting needs by many users, but that's not the case for me. I'd like the options of, say, ~0.5 and ~5 lumen choices on the bottom end. Starting off at 50 - 150 lumens, or so, are often ok, but are sometimes more than is needed.

IMHO, unless the difference between output levels is 300% - 400%, it's too little. Even going from 100 to 300 lumens isn't too large a change for my eyes. Maybe I haven't considered all the angles on this topic, so I'd like to know what you think. It seems there are two different camps of manufacturers; some offer widely spaced levels and some have many, but more similar output levels.

One of my 1xAA compacts (let it remain unnamed) has a 6/60/140lm level spacing. 60lm medium mode is a complete waste of runtime and useful lumens for a light of this format and output, since it's really difficult to distinguish 60 from 140lm in a real world. I simply don't have a need for 60lm level at all. Why not 6/25/140? As you say, jayflash, minimum spacing factor should be (at least) 3 or (ideally) 4.

Cheers

I agree... you really need at least that 3-4x step to make it worthwhile due to that human logarithmic perception thing. I like a 10x step at the lowest end, then steadily decreasing steps until its ~ 4x at the high end. The closest I have to that is the Quark LV XML head: 0.3, 3, 24, 115, 280.

Infinitely variable ring lights don't have this issue, but really like the low lumen runtimes of the fixed modes.

I think it's a marketing thing, where feature-happy manufacturers try to lure neophyte consumers into thinking that having a lot of brightness choices is "technologically advanced" or something like that.
For most of my lights, I'm perfectly happy with just a Hi and a Low, and that's it.

We sometimes confuse the difference between perceived brightness, which humans are famously terrible at perceiving for various reasons, with the ability to resolve targets, which we are much better at.

For example, if I set up a bunch of random targets (stuffed animals, animals, bricks, whatever...and spread them out in a giant fan shaped pattern at various distances from the shining point...and you switch from say 100 lumens to 120 lumens, a small jump, you'll see more STUFF, and can count off what you saw at 100 vs 120 L....and you'll see more at 120 L, because there was a little more light, and it illuminated a few more things.

If I take that same view, remove the targets, and ask you to shine the light at 100 L and then 120 L, you'd most likely tell me the beams were about the same.

So, when we talk about perception of BRIGHTNESS, yup, we are not that good, as we don't have a good way to compare w/o reference points...and an area that is in a hot spot cannot be perceived as MORE of a hot spot, as we have already overloaded our sensors for that. We might see if the area covered is larger, but, typically, not brighter until a much larger difference is there.

But when we talk about a flashlight's out put relative to SEEING, you CAN tell if there's even a LITTLE more light, as even a little more light shows a little more stuff/detail.

You can resolve more of what's out there with more light.



As for the guy with "6/60/140lm level spacing. 60lm medium mode is a complete waste of runtime...." I'd say to him that, if he's mostly right at least, that the 60 was what he WANTED, and the 140 was the wasted level.

Why sacrifice run time to make lumens you can't see?



Of course, its always about target resolution...and, I'd just like us all to take a deep breath, and try to remember what the light was FOR.





That said...I tend to use all my lights on high...and that's about it. Once in a while I might turn one down if there's a glare, etc.

If I wanted less light, I'd just use a dimmer light, etc.

There ARE some scenarios where its a lot more handy to be able to adjust a light up/down though...and those adjustments are there for those scenarios. IMHO, most of us don't need to much more than a level or 3, for MOST scenarios...but, some people will find infinite adjustment, like being able to continuously ramp brightness up/down...handy...and some will use the 2-3 defaults and call it a day (night?).

+1. 60 lumens used to be tactical output, 100 for SAR. If all you need is 60 lumens, you'll have double the runtime of 140 lumens.

I'd like the same spacing in every light in every size.

10 , 100 , Max

No such thing as too many levels IMO, just a matter of how difficult it is to get where you want. I could never just give 3-4 perfect levels because situations and needs change, and that why I own a variety of lights. I need higher levels for outdoors then indoors, lesser yet for close work, lesser yet for late if I'm the only one up...ect. Crelant is on track to the perfect UI IMO. It has variable ramping from 1 lumen to max 500 with dual memory (as long as rear lockout is not turned off) this allow me to set a high and a low of anywhere between 1 and 500 and keep it in memory, (wish it went to full power off memory though.) That is one thing I've always like about my Lenser also...variable ramping. It's the only way all users will ever be satisfied....period.