Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Gemini Lights OLYMPIA LED (2012)

40K views 180 replies 33 participants last post by  MRMOLE 
#1 · (Edited)
Our new Gemini OLYMPIA is just about ready to launch, beginning of February 2012.

Gemini OLYMPIA
  • • LED: 3x CREE XM-L
  • • Brightness: 1700 Lumens
  • • Weight: 76g (Light Head)
  • • Beam Angle: 19°
  • • Run Time on Maximum: 2 hours (4-cell), 3.5 hours (6-cell)
  • • 4 modes: High, Med, Low, Flash (All modes are user programmable between 10-100%)
  • • Hard Anodized T6 Aluminum
  • • Battery Overcharge and Overheat Protection
  • • LED Overheat Protection
  • • IP65 Weatherproof

Included in the box:
• Gemini OLYMPIA LED Light
• High-Capacity 4-Cell Battery Pack (Hard case)
• Lithium Ion Smart Charger
• Helmet and Bar Mount
• Pro Head Belt
• Silicone O-Rings
• Extension Cable

Retail Prices: $229.99 (4-cell), $249.99 (6-cell)

And here is a sneak peak of the Olympia and Xera sitting together...




 
See less See more
4
#3 ·
Sweet!

How is the size in comparison with the Titan?

Is the 2hr runtime based on the 5.2 amp hour 4 cell? If so, then I'm thinking it draws about 2.6 amp total on High. This will be nice for me to be able to run both the Olympia and the Xera on my homemade 5.8 amp hour battery pack.

BTW, it's good to see that you kept each mode programable.
 
#4 ·
Any presales or introductory offers on this new light (similar to what gloworm is doing on their X2)? Is geomangear going to offer it and will they also carry the same time its released?

Any changes to the battery packs or chargers or are they standard (ie works with current Magicshine, Geomangear, and Gemini batteries?)
 
#5 ·
Looking good!!! Not much bigger than the Xera and at 76 grams would also be plenty light enough for helmet use as well. One one the bars and one one the helmet as an honest 3400 lumens set-up WOW!!! Are you doing any pre sale orders and if so can you disclose a price yet? Cheers!!!
 
#7 · (Edited)
Since this lamp is listed @ 1700 lumen, that would mean each emitter is outputting about 567 lumen. Basically that should put the amp draw about ( or ~ ) 1300ma per emitter ( going by standard Cree chart for XML T-6 max luminous output ). It really would be nice to have a gander at the front of the lamp. At a 19° beam spread this lamp should have lots of flood. The real question though is what kind of distance throw is this lamp going to have. :skep: There are already lots of bike lamps giving great flood patterns. Hopefully the people who are waiting for this will not be disappointed. To stave off those questions/fears it would a good idea to show some beam shots ...like real soon.

Now for people who think the beam pattern too wide and not enough throw...will there be offered a tighter optic?
 
#9 ·
Hi Colleen, I've updated my first post to show size comparisons. The 2 hour run time is based on the 5200mAh Samsung cells.

A presale offer will be available soon at a discounted rate.

And lastly, beam shots for you Cat....
Oh no, please...not just for me! ;)

After staring at the GIF's for about 30 minutes...my take.....pretty much what I expected. ( Noah, get the ark ready, the flood's a'coming! ) ;) ...but seriously, a very big/bright beam pattern. Absolutely put the 872 to shame. The 880 on the other hand looked pretty good and compares well against the triple ( although not quite as bright ). In the 880 comparison I held my hands to the monitor to block out the sides while looking at the center area to judge distance throw. For the most part I really didn't see much of a difference. The shadowed area does move back a tinge when the Olympia is on but not much. Then again quite possible that the camera can't really show us what it will look like at that distance ( due to the bright foreground ). For the moment I'll give the Olympia a slight advantage in throw. ( geez, I would of killed for a couple real distance markers )

Now I don't know if this is true or not but in the gif with the 880, the lamp head of the 880 doesn't look as though it's pointing in the same direction as the Olympia. It just looks like it's pointing down a bit. ( am I right?...:confused: ) Anyway if so, the 880 might have better throw if aimed a bit more upright.

My first impression, I think the Olympia is going to be the lamp of choice for people who want a stellar bar lamp with a bright close in beam pattern with lots of bright spill. It could be that it's throwing better than I think but without markers it's just hard to tell.

Regardless, if the Olympia can provide "usable throw" over 100 ft. ( 30.4m ) ( which I may add it appears to do ) it will make an excellent bar lamp. Add to that the ability to adjust all the modes and this becomes a total "win, win".

( Side note: Ya know I was just thinking....If I was a Lupine Dealer I might really start to worry about how well my inventory is going to sell in the next coming months. ;) :D )
 
#21 ·
The Olympia's beam is very impressive - kudos. The MJ-872 runs very hot on average ambient temperature with it's slightly larger surface area heatsink shell. The MJ-880 runs hot too with 2 x XM-L T6s. Just wondering how hot running 3 x XM-Ls on a similar sized shell(maybe a little smaller if my eyes are correct) with less surface area? If Gemini has that addressed and runs relatively cooler than the MS, you've got yourself a true winner.
 
#24 ·
After looking at the link I think it is going to be over $300 with shipping. I don't see a "light head only" option yet or a 6 cell battery option but I think maybe the website is a work in progress. Ummm....$300 is quite a bit of money. At that price I'm wondering what they will charge for the "Light head only". :???:
 
#33 · (Edited)
Ramble-ramble-self-mumblings.

I'm going to ramble on about this for a while so apologies in advance.

Back to the beamshots, I didn't think I would from the spec, but I think I prefer the 880 for the scene shown in the photo here. Things would be very different in a severe, off road technical setting.

The 880 seems to have a slightly narrower beam pattern which is clearly evident in the vertical sense (proximate ground and canopy).

Even though it does look as if the 880 is pointed ever so slightly lower than the Olympia, most notably, the close foreground from the 880 is not as overbearingly bright and the foliage is less well illuminated.

That being said, the throws of the two beams appear to be almost equal, with a slight edge to the Olympia.

In terms of brute power, then, the Olympia is the clear winner with most of the difference being a much brighter, fuller, smoother and wider flood.

However, after watching the two beamshots one after the other, I get the impression that (due relative distances) the Olympia is projecting a doughnut shaped light field, which, although clearly not true, is what I perceive. i.e. a ring of overly bright light reflected from the ground, the bushes and the canopy from the bright with a darkened centre.

This is especially evident if one focusses on the area just between and beyond the two benches, which as a path/road rider is where my eyes naturally went. One can see the 880 projecting an even, vertically-elongated, centrally-brightened "blob" (to use a technical lighting term) of light whereas the Olympia is projecting a kind of a "smile" (to be similarly technical) with the brightest central "bit" being nearer than the brightest "bits" on the sides of the path.

The problem is that eyes, as many have pointed out, adjust to brightness by either or both lowering their regional sensitivity and contracting the pupil in extreme light, meaning that perceived throw might actually be less than with the 880, with more distractions from the periphery to reduce focus on what lies ahead.

In this respect, the Olympia appears to be a Bigga-badda version of the 872 floodlight with the much-asked-for improved throw, whereas the 880 appears to be the successor to the well regarded 808E.

*** Camera note:

Some people have stated here that the relative brightness of the near ground might "reduce the ability of the camera to see the darker regions."

While this is in essence true, it may not be for the reasons one might think.

Assuming the camera employs a fixed gain on its sensor (ISO) with a fixed shutter speed and aperture and was set correctly, overly bright light WILL NOT cause it to "step down" and make the darker bits even darker except perhaps in extreme sunlight (sunburn protection circuit for example).

On the contrary, bright light naturally reflects within the lens and camera housings and in the glass itself to produce false images such as halos, ghosting or haze in all but the most expensive cameras with prime (non-zoom) lenses. Thus, the fixed sensitivity of the sensor causes the dark bits to actually appear brighter and "washed out" rather than black. It is this lack of contrast that reduces the resolving power of most camera/lens combinations, not the "stepping down" of the sensitivity/aperture.
 
#34 ·
Thanks for sharing your observations. They're certainly not self ramblings, we're all keen to hear everyone's thoughts and opinions.

In this respect, the Olympia appears to be a Bigga-badda version of the 872 floodlight with the much-asked-for improved throw, whereas the 880 appears to be the successor to the well regarded 808E.
You're pretty much correct on this. We looked at the popular MJ-872 flood light and studied it's shortcomings. We like the light very much but it really lacked the throw in speedy situations. So we designed Olympia to have a similar beam pattern with more throwing power. The Olympia and MJ-880 are in similar output range and we wanted to show a comparison to people since we had both Magicshine lights. The MJ-880 is essentially two 808E's put together, hence the pronounced spot pattern. I'm not sure if it's ideal as a bar light as it seems most of it's power is placed in the hotspot, leaving a dark donut around it. As Olympia is intended for a bar light, we created an optics to suit the job.

We're a fan of riding in nicely spread, even light so we went with optics much like XERA. The even spread just seems more natural to us and we didn't want the beam stop harshly around the edges. For the XERA and Olympia, we cover enough trail width and throw the rest forwards where it's put to good use.

The XERA reflector was produced for those accustomed the MJ-808 reflector pattern, but again we made the edges around the hotspot a little softer.

Shortly I will post pictures of the Olympia and XERA combined. It's spectacular.
 
#38 ·
@Rakuman

The 872 was a big hit for Magicshine. Very popular. But practically everyone commented on the ultimate lack of throw, even with the clear optics. I think the Gemini is going to be a very popular upgrade.

The price is right, the size is right and the power is outstanding.
 
#40 ·
I just ordered the olympia lighthead from action. $99.99 + less than 2 dollars to ship USPS. It didn't say how long till they come in but I'm in no hurry. I see Gemini posted
the lighthead option while I was ordering it but I knew everyone was interested in the price.
 
#43 ·
Price is right:thumbsup:But just got back from a ride and my 872 reminded me how hot a small light that was driven hard can get,
Now take a even smaller light and add even more heat leads me to wonder how well this guy will take it. I think I will let you guys be the guinea pigs and I will get one after they have been run thru the ringer... :)
 
#44 ·
That was the first thing I thought. Unless there are some spare ribs out of site at the back of the light, it looks like it's got even less ribbing on the case that the 872.

"Rib master general" Pethelman, if he hasn't already, might have something to say on the matter. I believe his own brew lights have something like 2 square inches PER WATT of surface area!!!! These lights look like they might have about 10 square inches.
 
#45 ·
Rakuman said:
Now take a even smaller light and add even more heat leads me to wonder how well this guy will take it. I think I will let you guys be the guinea pigs and I will get one after they have been run thru the ringer...
I have gone as low as ~1 sq in area per Watt on my microlights. They get quite hot if stopped. A moderate airflow in coolish weather does keep them at comfortable temps. The Olympia appears to be ~.5 sq in area per Watt. I'd be concerned. LED output decreases as the temperature goes up. Reliability of electronics is reduced at high temps.
 
#50 ·
Since XML are more efficient when they aren't driven as hard maybe the Olympia might not be worse off than the Xera? The Olympia could run its high setting at a lower/more efficient level for each XML vs. Xera's single XML which I assume is driven harder. It would also make sense it wouldn't need as much heatsinking as the Baja Designs Double Stryk which has a similar number for claimed lumens via dual XMLs.

I wonder what the real world OTF is going to be, optimistically maybe 400-450 lumens/LED?
 
#52 ·
syadasti, You are right in that using 3 XM-L's driven at a lower current is more efficient. The lumens vs current curve is not linear. For 567 lumens per LED (1700/3), you would only need about 1.55A through each one. 800 lumens from a single LED would need 2.5A.
Remember, Gemini's claim of 1700 lumens is measured in a test lab.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top