What characteristics make a quality LED torch 'quality' to you?

First off, credit to Chuckhov for suggesting that I ask this question as a separate thread.

It started as a discussion of this ~$60 light: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00RCATDJA/?tag=cpf0b6-20 (Solaray Pro ZX-1)

Which is remarkably similar to these:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00E8UNBQI/?tag=cpf0b6-20 (Ecogear FX TK-120)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00SGGFPZA/?tag=cpf0b6-20 (Taklite TL-Apollo)


Instinctively, I knew I wouldn't like these lights, despite the fact that they aren't cheap (especially by most people's standards). But they're rated VERY highly on Amazon. And yet the beam profile picture included in one of those product pages is exactly why I would not like the light.

Of course, they all list extravagant lumens ratings. I'm constantly having to defend to buddies at work why I pay so much for my Surefires, Fenix lights, etc., when they're explaining how they got their 40,000 lumen light for only $35 (bet this is a common struggle for many here .


But it got me thinking about a larger a larger question: what do you guys consider to be the main features that make a quality light a quality light, and therefore worth the big $$$. I feel like Fenix, SF, and many others are intrinsically better - but then I wonder to what extent I've drank the Kool-Aid, and to what extend people get similar performance out of cheap (or not cheap) Chinese lights and I'm just a snob

So - what makes quality to you, what separates some brands from the others and makes them worth the price, and where have you found that quality?

That's a very good question, one that I don't yet have a complete answer for.

More than just quality, there are other factors like 'features' that can determine what a light has to be sold for, for the maker to make a profit.

And, of course we can never forget the Value of a Brand Name. - This only says, that in the past, people have thought very well of it, so that it is recognisable, and therefor well received. - Chances are high that a new release will be at least 'good', because they have their Name to protect.

There are the usual suspects of course, that are considered to be of very high quality, and let's (without mentioning any names) give them a rating of 100% - Which would be based (IMO) mainly on quality, because at this level, 'features' are probably already included in the price.

Then we have the 'Mainstream' lights (you all know the players), that maybe (?) could be rated at 90%? - The last few % in anything is really gonna cost you. - This and the next level down is where I live.

I just got a Convoy S2+ (the Red one - XM-L2 4C, 8x 7135 2.8A), and I'm finding it to be a fine light, just lacking features that I would like to have (an E side switch for one). - But the cost is much less - My % quality rating? I can't really say, as I am not qualified to judge, but I'm very happy with it, and will be buying more from Convoy. - They are what people commonly call "Budget" lights. - I think that they would work for most. - Of course there are many more Brands is this category.

Then there are (some) that cost even less, but still are usable, dependable lights... Can't really go by any Brand here, because you really don't know who made it. - The don't know who really made it also applies to the 90% group. - Such is the nature of outsourcing.

Then there is the "common sense tells you to avoid" group, like the many, many $5 lights. - You might get something that will last for years (or not), but it will never be finely machined, and will most probably not be a top performer; not something like you were hoping for. - YMMV.

To summarize, if you want "The Best", it would be a good thing if you are in a position to not have to ask the price, because if you have to ask, then you can't afford it.

The 90% Mainstream lights are affordable to most/many.

If you have a Ton of Bucks, then you can move through all of the better lights rather quickly, so then, where do you then get your kicks?

Maybe buying $5-$20 lights (or just the host) and get into modding them? - Everybody needs a vibrant hobby

So you see, I really don't know, but the discovery is my journey. - I'm happy!

Thanks for the good question,



-Chuck

Quality is somewhat subjective, and means different things to different people. I've owned cheap lights (<$20) that I feel are of decent quality...and I've owned expensive lights (>$100) which I thought were lacking in quality. I submit that if you have the money, and think you might like a light, go for it! Reliability doesn't matter much if you don't enjoy using the light in the first place. Sure, you will get a dud here and there, but chock those up as a learning experience...if nothing else, it will help you refine your tastes, and clarify what you are really looking for in future purchases. You can always sell (or give away) lights that you don't end up using. Don't worry about what others think one way or the other...you can always find someone to bash, or to hype, any brand/maker/modder/model you can name.

I will say that as a rule of thumb, assuming you don't have unlimited money, it is useful to avoid both extremes. Don't buy the very cheapest lights, and don't buy the most expensive lights, unless for aesthetic reasons, realizing that you are paying a simply enormous premium. The performance for the money is likely to be relatively poor at either end of the spectrum.

Nice one Doc!

Keep em coming guys!

-Chuck

Simplicity

Reliability

Quality of Craftsmanship

Intelligent design

Philosophy of Use

Simplicity. Ironically, this is one of the most important features of a light to me. If I can't use the light easily or I don't enjoy using the light, I'm not going to use it. *shrug* It's the plain bold truth for me. Simplicity doesn't necessarily mean simple engineering either. Many Ultrafire lights have a very simple UI. Click the tailcap for on, half click to change modes. Wash, rinse, repeat. Pretty damn simple and in my opinion, pretty damn clunky. It works, but back to the first point, I don't enjoy it. Personally, I really like the dual switch design Fenix started making popular a while back. The tail cap does one thing and does it well. The light turns on and it turns off. That's it. You want different modes? Click the little button on the side and pick one. Similar to the Ultrafire concept, but more... streamlined. I like to set my lights on the second lowest "work" mode and leave them there with mode memory. If I need to change it, I do and then I put it back. That being said, I also don't like more modes than is necessary. It starts to get in the way of the whole simplicity thing. I love the concept of the SRT 7, but I don't need all the strobes, color strobes, infinitely variable light ramp, etc... A control ring can be very simple and very elegant in design. Sunwayman did this the best IMO with their older M20a's and the like. Eagletac has some very similar designs with a rotating head. And there is more than one form of simplicity. The Klarus XT12 is another favorite design of mine. It's a very simple light. Turn the light on in high mode everytime. Period. Change modes with a different button if you want or don't. Also comes with a simple strobe. Everything is very intuitive from the looks. A very different beast from a Fenix PD32 though.

Reliability is pretty much self explanatory. Will it work everytime, all the time, in any conditions. Most people have their thoughts on this based off of a combination of brand identification, past experience, and personal opinion on what they think a "tough" light looks and feels like. We all do this and as such reliability accounts vary widely. The Fenix TK15 is my all time favorite light. I've dropped mine from multiple stories more than once (not intentionally). Four years later, it's still kicking around for the dirty jobs working on my car. Someone, somewhere, probably dropped their's on a pillow and watched the LED spark out and set the pillow on fire *sarc*. Such is life. And this is where averages and brand name carry weight.

Quality of Craftsmanship - I enjoy things that are well made, enough said.

Like most of these features, intelligent design goes hand in hand with simplicity and reliability; however, this is where I begin to get into the nitty gritty of mode spacing, regulation, intensity, etc... Everyone has their preference on lowest available mode and spacing so to each their own on that. To me, the biggest tell of an intelligent design is the thermal management. For decades we worked with sub 500 lumen lights with no problem. I still find a well focused 50 lumens to be the perfect general work setting. If a light can sustain its highest mode with perfectly regulated output and maintains excellent efficiency and regulation on all modes, it's circuit and emitter were intelligently matched with the host. Showing my true colors with this again, but the Fenix TK15 is a good example. Flat regulation on all modes, ample throw and spill (personal preference), and a true 2 hour runtime on the advertised high. Same with the E40 and TK61, as well as several others.

Philosophy of Use. I wouldn't use a Klarus XT12 for walking around my house in the middle of the night and I wouldn't use my Quark AA for searching and clearing. Buy a light for what you need, not one light that fills every use you could possibly think of.

And finally, every rule has an exception. If it suits you and fills a niche, then it works. Sometimes you find out the first by trial and error, but that tends to happen a lot in life in my experience. I might make sacrifices on some of things above if I really need (or want) a specific function.



Edit: That's what I get for writing a dissertation on the subject, Doc beat me to some of my own points while I was typing

Doc said: "The performance for the money is likely to be relatively poor at either end of the spectrum."


Yep! - If you're not rich, use your brain and buy what is 'good/very good'.

What Doc said is the general rule in this world for just about everything. - Nothing else makes any sense.

On the other hand, if you are Rich - Knock yourself out, and enjoy it!

But, I really think that Poor folks have just as much fun as rich folks - Depends on your expectations.

Be happy and enjoy your lights,
-Chuck

1) Durability / Reliability being equal ( if those are met, F&F is likely good as well.)

2) Runtime & Simplicity also being equal


It can have spaceship, warp-speed, voodoo runtime, but that doesn't mean anything if It won't turn on every time. I also like a simple UI, If I have to "cycle" through more than 1 mode to do what I want, its a no go Joe Blow.

HDS / Malkoff - I've bought and sold a lot of lights. These are the winners for my application.

Appropriate functionality for the task at hand; seems like that is just about top priority for me. Then very good reliability has to be right up there as well. There are folks here on CandlePowerForums (or talked about here) that can build quality lights for less than $40. Fortunately though, most of the expensive flashlights are really not crazy expensive, and it is fun to have experiences with those too. Then it becomes an 'Interest' and/or a pride-of-ownership thing.

If you are using a light with fully dark adapted eyes, sub-lumen modes are a must. Relatively close-up tasks benefit with a broader beam of light, just as longer distances need more throw. The user interface should not distract or take too long to implement. The tint should likewise not distract from, or impair the objective of seeing what's out there.

Somehow, certain lights exude quality even though they exhibit certain faults; shortcomings if you will. We let it slide because of the other traits that are so desirable. If we like the company or person who made the light, then it is a quality tool, or a piece of art, or a symbolic manifestation of our triumph over darkness.

For the lights mentioned on top. Pretty similar looking to me. Probably find others easy enough on DX, Fasttech or other similar sites. Not that they are bad lights, might even be good ones, just gotta be aware of what you are getting and rebranding.

http://www.dx.com/p/ultrafire-e17-9...w-cree-xm-l-t6-black-1-x-18650-3-x-aaa-348396

As to quality to me, its mostly reliability and durability. Does it do what its supposed to do every time I need it to do it as often as I need it done? Does it still work in situations where its not really the right tool? If yes to the first its quality, if to both its good quality. Features like modes, memory, tint, anodizing color or other similar things that lights have are subjective to each person I think, as some things I don't like will be a must have for others. For me those thing's don't affect it to me as far as quality.

That being said, there are lights that when I buy them, I am surprised if they do not meet expectations and not surprised when they exceed expectations.

For me, materials, fit and finish, ergonomics, and beam color.

I had a 'quality' flashlight die from being dropped on a dirt trail. That's not quality if you ask me.

It's gotta work reliably. It's gotta be reasonably water-proof. It's gotta be efficient. It's gotta have modes that go from dim to bright. It's gotta have a decent beam and tint.

For me, the sweet spot is $50-$100 lights. Below that, and you're sacrificing quality. Above that, and you're paying a big premium for brand or marginal quality gains.

I'm not opposed to really cheap lights as toys (a $5 light is just as good as a $50 light to a kid), but I'd rather buy a quality light I will enjoy (even if it is a toy to me). I'm not going to pay $300 for a light that is only slightly better than a $100 light, though. At $300, you're just paying for bragging rights, and I'm happy to let others play that game.

A quality light? For me it has to have a certain level of build quality and attention to detail. Ideally, I'd want a quality light to have as many of the following as possible:

1. Type III hard anodized finish for aluminum lights. Finish should look uniform and be of high quality. Any lettering on the light should be crisp and neat.
2. AR coated glass lens for lights not using TIR or aspheric optics. But the lens coating should not be one that gives an ugly tint (early model Olight S10 I'm looking at you)
3. Copper star with direct thermal path to the exterior of the light.
4. Solid pill, or emitter shelf under the star.
5. Well thought out UI, with shortcuts to min, max and off. Intermediate modes should be available but don't need shortcuts. Light should have a moonlight mode.
6. Good driver. Should have extra features like a battery voltage checker and thermal sensor. Light can get hot, but should not overheat when run at max power.
7. Waterproofing is optional. A non-zoomie should be waterproof, but zoomies typically aren't as most need to admit and expel are for the zoom function to operate properly.
8. Relatively thick driver wires. At least 22 gauge.
9. A good emitter. The emitter chosen should be the best available for its class ... no dated emitters when a new generation is available in the same class. Also the emitter chosen should have good tint with no green.
10. A good beam pattern. A light is only as good as its beam. The beam pattern should be suitable for the light and pleasing to look at.
11. Unique design. I expect a quality light to have an unusual or unique custom design different from budget lights. Zebralights are a good example of what I consider to be a quality light.
12. Efficient use of size. I prefer lights to be as small and compact as possible. It should be no larger than it needs to be to get the job done. Lights that are 4x as long as their battery are a good example of what I consider inefficient design.
13. Attention to detail. It should be evident from looking at and using a quality light that great thought was put into its design, ergonomics, style, etc. Zebralights are a good example. The SC51 was nice and small, but its protruding soft-touch e-switch left a lot to be desired as a pocket EDC light. They put some thought into this and debuting with the SC600 was a much better switch: smaller, stiffer and deeply recessed. It's obvious, they took comments about accidental pocket activation to heart and designed their lights to overcome this problem.
14. Reliable. A quality light needs to work when you activate it and should be drop resistant. I expect a $5 budget light could fail if I drop it 3 feet, but a $50 light should continue to work. That said I don't actually expect a quality light to be built like a tank unless its main selling point is durability (HDS for example). Personally, I often prefer tiny lights whose main selling point is their small size. I don't expect a small thin light to survive if a tank runs over it, but it should survive being dropped.
15. Well driven. I prefer pocket rockets. The max power mode should be sufficient to let everyone know it's a high end light, and not some 5-year-old clunker. I don't like underdriven lights.
16. Customization. A nice feature to have on quality lights is the ability to choose various features at time of purchase, such as the body color or type of emitter.

Two other factors I look for, but I do not actually consider required to be high quality
a. Personal preference: I prefer electronic switches, though a quality light can have any type of switch. E-switches allow for a more complex UI and just feel higher quality than clickies or twisties.
b. Moddable. Not actually required to be a quality light, but I personally like to mod my lights so the more accessible the innards are the better.

Fireclaw18 said:

14. Reliable. A quality light needs to work when you activate it and should be drop resistant. I expect a $5 budget light could fail if I drop it 3 feet, but a $50 light should continue to work. That said I don't actually expect a quality light to be built like a tank unless its main selling point is durability (HDS for example). Personally, I often prefer tiny lights whose main selling point is their small size. I don't expect a small thin light to survive if a tank runs over it, but it should survive being dropped.

Click to expand...

I am mostly on the same page. Is reliability and durability interchangeable? For example I don't consider Quarks durable given their UL build but so far they have been reliable. On the flip side I had lights which technically were far more durable than my Quarks but proved unreliable. I think reliability is key but maybe durability is subjective within the context and inherent constants of a particular gear item. We are probably saying the same thing.

Woods Walker said:

I am mostly on the same page. Is reliability and durability interchangeable? For example I don't consider Quarks durable given their UL build but so far they have been reliable. On the flip side I had lights which technically were far more durable than my Quarks but proved unreliable. I think reliability is key but maybe durability is subjective within the context and inherent constants of a particular gear item. We are probably saying the same thing.

Click to expand...

That's a good point. I consider Quarks reliable, but I've seen youtube videos where drops shatter the lens. So, yes, they don't seem all that durable.

Overall, I'd like both reliable and durable, but since I mostly baby my lights, reliability is more important to me. If I used them in back-country outdoors, then durability would gain in importance.

Oddly, some of the really cheap plastic Chinese no-name lights are more durable than many of the good brands we talk about here all the time. The light weight plastic construction, and simple design, of the cheap-o lights makes them fairly resilient to drops. Not much weight to cause damage, and not much electronics in them to damage.

Woods Walker said:

I am mostly on the same page. Is reliability and durability interchangeable? For example I don't consider Quarks durable given their UL build but so far they have been reliable. On the flip side I had lights which technically were far more durable than my Quarks but proved unreliable. I think reliability is key but maybe durability is subjective within the context and inherent constants of a particular gear item. We are probably saying the same thing.

Click to expand...

VERY interesting. I was thinking the same myself. Personally, I prefer R/D to be close together. But as you mentioned it is subjective and not always equal. Although I would consider Quarks R/D there is a wide difference vs something like an MD2 where those 2 attributes are closer together. Quarks can take some good use and remain reliable, but the R/D is worlds away with something that has an acrylic lens, potted electronics, thicker walls, less modes, smaller production ect...Thats just math...

There is a trade off for every light. Most users will find Quarks to be plenty R/D for their application and place hi value on all the UI options. Other users will value the ultimate in reliability and durability with something more beefier like an MD2 and prefer the much simpler UI.

The tradeoffs are endless, weight for example can be a factor as well. A hiker might prefer a lighter, single cell, non potted Quark vs an MD2 while a soldier would likely take the MD2 as the weight isn't as important for the larger increase in being dead reliable and have the durability to weapon mount.

ForrestChump said:

VERY interesting. I was thinking the same myself. Personally, I prefer R/D to be close together. But as you mentioned it is subjective and not always equal. Although I would consider Quarks R/D there is a wide difference vs something like an MD2 where those 2 attributes are closer together. Quarks can take some good use and remain reliable, but the R/D is worlds away with something that has an acrylic lens, potted electronics, thicker walls, less modes, smaller production ect...Thats just math...

There is a trade off for every light. Most users will find Quarks to be plenty R/D for their application and place hi value on all the UI options. Other users will value the ultimate in reliability and durability with something more beefier like an MD2 and prefer the much simpler UI.

The tradeoffs are endless, weight for example can be a factor as well. A hiker might prefer a lighter, single cell, non potted Quark vs an MD2 while a soldier would likely take the MD2 as the weight isn't as important for the larger increase in being dead reliable and have the durability to weapon mount.

Click to expand...

Somehow I feel my old old school G2 (pre-lock-out tail cap) with M60LL could be my most reliable/durable light. It's low mass means drops won't harm it. The acrylic lens won't shatter. The M60LL not only has a sealed LED but potted electronics. The CR123 chemistry is rock solid. Not that my 6P/M61WL or G2Z M61NL are weak. The E01 is another contender. But the light you have on hand when needed is ultimately the best. The same applies to a knife, gun or water filter. The Quark 1XCR123 QPLC is small enough to fit inside a PSK. So when needed it's there.

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...LED-flashlight-to-the-rescue-Sorta&highlight=

Yup the mix and match between factors are endless but I bet more lights have died because they simply went aka minor drop or for no obvious reason than actually dying hard. Or as was the case with my headlamp in the above link wrong battery chemistry for extreme cold. User errors can't be ignored as failure is failure just the same. Things such as a lack of lockout, limited battery chemistry, hard to work switches in the cold etc etc can all impact reliability.

Imho, quality comes from a few factors:

• That it's clear a lot of thought went into a design, by someone who knows how to design these things.
• That it's clear the process from design -> product was well executed, by someone who knows how to build these things.
• First and foremost: that it does its intended job(s). Whatever that job definition is. Especially not fail when you most need it.
• And keeps doing so for a long time.

Obviously some of these things may come at a cost. But not necessarily. Most other things like UI, materials used, overall fit & finish, customer service etc, tend to follow 'automagically' from the above.

Also I think quality != "best". The best light is a light that best matches the job(s) at hand. When you're a rich collector and want a shelf queen, or aiming to please a rich Arab oil sheik, no reason why you shouldn't spend $500 on a shiny custom light from exotic materials. When you're handing out lights to a school class, and know they will be dropped in mud, used as projectiles, and stepped on before the day is over, even a $5 light might be overkill.

Woods Walker said:

Is reliability and durability interchangeable?

Click to expand...

NO, it's a matter of "weakest link". If you use all quality parts, but include a junk switch that makes the light fail, the effort spent on those other parts is wasted. It's a matter of designing & building such, that all parts have a (more or less) equal chance of failing. Or at least that it's not obvious which part is most likely to fail first. If that is obvious, it's the "weak link" and needs extra attention until it's improved such that it isn't. Of course this heavily depends on a light's intended purpose.

RetroTechie said:

NO, it's a matter of "weakest link". If you use all quality parts, but include a junk switch that makes the light fail, the effort spent on those other parts is wasted. It's a matter of designing & building such, that all parts have a (more or less) equal chance of failing. Or at least that it's not obvious which part is most likely to fail first. If that is obvious, it's the "weak link" and needs extra attention until it's improved such that it isn't. Of course this heavily depends on a light's intended purpose.

Click to expand...

The question was rhetorical and I agree with your assessment.

For me, a "quality" light has the "quality" of adequately filling the role for which I bought it to fill.
I have "quality" cheap chinese lights, because I bought them with the idea of "cheap loaner" or "barely adequate UV source" in mind.
I also have "quality" $200 lights that I bought with high expectations of fit/finish, brightness, durability, tint, UI, etc.

It's all relative to what I EXPECT from a light - if it doesn't meet those expectations, then I consider it to be a low quality light.

Woods Walker said:

Is reliability and durability interchangeable?

Click to expand...

RetroTechie said:

NO, it's a matter of "weakest link". If you use all quality parts, but include a junk switch that makes the light fail, the effort spent on those other parts is wasted. It's a matter of designing & building such, that all parts have a (more or less) equal chance of failing. Or at least that it's not obvious which part is most likely to fail first. If that is obvious, it's the "weak link" and needs extra attention until it's improved such that it isn't. Of course this heavily depends on a light's intended purpose.

Click to expand...

I see them as interchangeable to some extent, even in contrast to WW's statement that it was a rhetorical question and that he also agrees with your assessment.

"Similar" Being the most common synonym of interchangeable .

The eight dimensions of quality.


"Reliability is the likelihood that a product will not fail within a specific time period. This is a key element for users who need the product to work without fail."


"Durability measures the length of a product's life. When the product can be repaired, estimating durability is more complicated. The item will be used until it is no longer economical to operate it. This happens when the repair rate and the associated costs increase significantly."


The 2 become closer by definition in relation to time. If I have a new - single mode - tested by NASA - Malkoff MD2 and use it for 1 day, the likely hood of failure, while possible, is negligible. The shorter the time frame, the less chance of the "weakest link" being a contributing factor assuming everything is designed for longevity, which require both Durability & Reliability. If you were looking at a venn diagram the middle margin would get bigger and definitions closer as time is reduced. Thus making them more interchangeable. You lengthen the time frame and the margin gets smaller and eventually separates.