Originally Posted by
cyccommute
The one thing I would add is that for a lux measurement to be meaningful, you have to have the distance from the light to the target.
I would say that most light output claims are inflated. However, since they all inflate them about the same, comparisons can still be made. Although you linked to MTBR's light shootout, pictures of beam shots can be misleading by themselves. MTBR does a good job of using the same camera settings for all of their light pictures but their exposure times are too long. To their credit, MTBR does use an integrating sphere to measure the true lumen output which can be found
here. Based on my experience with the Magic Shine and generic Chinese Crees, I would put their output at about the same level...i.e. around 700 lumens. Which is about what you can get out of a overvolted MR11 halogen or their output is about the same as you could get 15 to 20 years ago.
I don't see aimed optics having much future at all. The wave of the future is the $20 Cree. I would say that "requiring 3 to 4 times the power" is overstating the difference. The MTBR beam shots certainly don't show that kind of difference. Even if the Phillips had "3 to 4 times the power", a $20 price tag on the Crees means you can purchase multiples and get to that level of power. The $200 price of the Phillips makes having more than one prohibitive.
An even better example of the wave of the future. These lights are incredibly small. Small enough that you could mount two on the bars and one on the helmet and approach Battle of Britain seachlight status. And, at $30 per unit, you'll have plenty of money left over for other stuff. Phillips and other more expensive lights just can't compete.
If only they didn't look like 1950 ladies' glasses.
I don't disagree with what you said, I too think all lights are overrated, my point was that some are a lot more than others, one look at the sites I gave that showed beam comparisons will reveal that. Whether nor not the exposure on the camera was too long or too short is irrelevant because either way on the exposure would have still showed us the same thing, some lights are brighter than others.
My experience in a real life situation and not in a lab was that a 1200 lumen MagicShine was far dimmer than my Phillips Saferide, the MagicShine was much closer to my Cygolite MityCross 480!
As far as cheap Cree lights getting on the market that has already happened, but LBS's and on line bike stores won't sell them because the profit margin is less, but on the practical side the low cost cree units do not have the reliability nor a company that will stand behind the product in case of warranty issues. Though I guess one could make the argument about why care about a warranty if you only pay $30 for the light.
Can or will the major brands compete, right now they do quite well, later on? Only time will tell but I have a feeling in the long run the major brands will reduce their pricing structure too, maybe not as low a $30 but if a current quality name brand light is selling for $200 they could attempt to sell them for $75 and win the battle. It's funny but no one complains about paying $250 for a pair of Nike running shoes yet it only cost $4 to make that shoe, and another $45 or so in marketing, shipping and warehouse costs, the rest is pure profit, and yet for years there has been $30 to $60 running shoes and they have survived side by side...the same will be true with lights.