New H53c AA Headlamp Neutral White High CRI!

[gunga]

Well. Based on some quick use, I have mixed feelings. The body has a few scuffs. Some from the pre installed clip. That is irritating. Otherwise the fit and finish is good. The LED is well centred (while it's a fraction off on the sc5c II).

Tint is a mixed bag. Seems OK but tends to yellow with a hint of green. I put DC fix on it and it blends the tint. Better. I used it for a few hours of modding on H2 (burned through an eneloop). I found it pleasant. I'll need to evaluate more at night. A little disappointed. But not fully decided yet on my final thoughts.

Note: I chose a clear lens because I wanted the option of a non diffuse beam and may use the light as an angle light.

 

[gunga]

2nd impression is better. Especially after diffusing the beam. Ah, the dangers of white wall hunting.

I'm still tempted to ask about an exchange due to the minor scuffs (small but goes all the way to bare metal). The funny thing is I accept this on some lights (eg. Hds) when it is considered "normal". This is not. It's minor enough to ignore but on a shiney new toy (Er tool) it's irritating. My worry is that the second sample will be similar.

I'll need to do a mini review of sorts to encompass what I see.

 

[Genzod]

I think I finally found a throwier alternative for the boost-less H53 line: :rock:

 

[gunga]

Oooh, I like that one...

----

Okay, let me just post what I see in regards to tint. I'm posting this in both the SC5c II thread and the H53c thread since it's relevant to both. While beam shots are nice, I don't think I can accurately represent what I see and also the beam shots would be subject to many variables (from the camera, white balance, to the monitor etc.).

Here's what I saw/see in both the SC5c II and the H53c.

1st impression. Ugly. White wall hunting during the day. Holding the light close to the wall, I see yellow tint with some green in the corona. Never mind pollution from the available daylight, this looks rather poor. Does not compare well to anything I own (which are all handpicked or modded lights with nice tints and/or high CRI).

2nd impression. Much better, quite nice, likely a keeper. So when actually examining things more closely at night, I see something different. The hotspot itself is quite nice in tint, comparable to a 4000K Nichia 219C (this is generally more yellow/green than a 219B). I do see a Cree tint variation though with hints of yellow/green in the corona and also some in the centre of the hotspot giving it the slight impression of a donut. I think this is why some people noted a donut in the Zebralight SC63 (It uses a quad die Cree XPH35 LED I believe). I believe the XPL2 Easywhite is a quad die LED also, thus leading to the impression of a mild donut (very mild). In any case, I have heard of quite unpleasant tint variation on the newer generation of Cree LEDs (XPL2, XPG3) in reflectored lights. I may be seeing some of that here. Please note, this is what I see when viewing on a white wall, up close. As you move away from the wall, the effect is less pronounced. Also, in use, the hotspot is broad, the tint is quite pleasant, and colours pop quite well. So therein lies the danger of white wall hunting, especially up close. I did some reading with colourful kids books too with my son with the light and found it to be a nice tint/beam in use, even up close.

Now the headlamp came with a clear lens too, because I wanted the option of throw and possible use as an angle light. I put some DC Fix film on to diffuse the beam for general use. This works well and has the added benefit of mixing the colours so that the overall beam is smooth with no nasty tint variation. So if you plan on doing this or getting the flood version (with the frosted lens) you will have a much better experience. Colour rendering is good, tint is pleasantly warm. Again more very mild hints of yellow/green than a Nichia 219B or even a Cree Easywhite XML2 but not objectionable at all.

So, for clear lens, white wall hunters will be unhappy, but in use it's quite nice. Frosted lens (or DC Fix) users will be generally happy. Note, I have read that the Cree tint shift is less pronounced in optics, especially mildly frosted ones, of course.

Other notes: Both lights feel impressively small. I've sold all my AA Zebralights (one in, one out rule) so can't compare them directly but they both feel compact. I'm impressed that the SC5c II feels so nice and compact (still has a big head) since that was the main complaint of the previous version. I have not tried the new UI yet but am eager to see it in action. The anodizing is good though I do have some small/minor scuffs (down to bare metal!) on the headlamp I find irritating. It came that way and I'm inquiring about a replacement. Otherwise, overall fit and finish is quite good. Not outstanding, but very good.

Overall, after my initial horror, I'm generally satisfied and feel much better about these. The efficiency, features, new UI, general reliability, high cri and size make these worth keeping.

 

[iamlucky13]

I believe the XPL2 Easywhite is a quad die LED also, thus leading to the impression of a mild donut (very mild). In any case, I have heard of quite unpleasant tint variation on the newer generation of Cree LEDs (XPL2, XPG3) in reflectored lights.

Thanks for the mini-review.

Every indication I've seen, including the forward voltage, is that the XP-L2 is single die. I've not seen a good photo, but the photo on Cree's website seems to show a single die. It appears to me whatever the reasons for making the XM-L2 Easywhite a quad die don't apply here.

The XP-L definitely seems to experience a lot of tint variation. I haven't seen any XP-L2's in person. However, it stands out to me that in photos the XP-L dome appears fully transparent, while in the XP-L2 it seems to be yellowish and hazy. Perhaps Cree added some phosphor or diffuser to the dome to help smooth out tint variation.

 

[TCY]

I think I finally found a throwier alternative for the boost-less H53 line: :rock:

I can hunt down aliens with this

 

[NPL]

Thanks for all the good info so far on the H53c.

Can anybody comment on how it compares to the H52w, or any other 4500K 75cri light from Zebralight? Noticeable difference in color rendition?

 

[TCY]

Thanks for all the good info so far on the H53c.

Can anybody comment on how it compares to the H52w, or any other 4500K 75cri light from Zebralight? Noticeable difference in color rendition?

Compared to my SC62w: feels like the colours rendered by the XM-L2 are "fake", or a bit off, artificial, if you will. High CRI lights like the H53c/Fc makes the colour look as natural as they can be despite that CCT is lower. White is still white, but with a warm touch compared to higher CCT lights.

 

[NPL]

Compared to my SC62w: feels like the colours rendered by the XM-L2 are "fake", or a bit off, artificial, if you will. High CRI lights like the H53c/Fc makes the colour look as natural as they can be despite that CCT is lower. White is still white, but with a warm touch compared to higher CCT lights.

Music to my ears, thanks!

 

[gunga]

Compared to my SC62w: feels like the colours rendered by the XM-L2 are "fake", or a bit off, artificial, if you will. High CRI lights like the H53c/Fc makes the colour look as natural as they can be despite that CCT is lower. White is still white, but with a warm touch compared to higher CCT lights.

Thanks for posting that TCY. I sold all my "w" Zebralights so have nothing to compare too. I remember they were pretty good tint but something was missing after seeing a good high cri. That and I prefer 4000K to 4500K. This echos my thoughts.

Note that I have 3700-4000K xml2 (80+ cri) that I find very pleasant. So perhaps 75 vs 80+ cri makes a difference. Either that or it's just the tint.

 

[gunga]

Well. I found another bug in the new firmware that effectively ruins it for me.

This affects both the sc5c II and the h53c.

I've programmed g7 on both (have not tried g6 but it should be the same).

I've reverse mapped the levels so that L1, L2 (long press) are high and H1, H2 (quick press) are low. I kept medium the same.

This, in theory, should allow me to do a quick press to get low levels (and not kill my night vision) and do a long press for high.

Holding the button starts on high and scrolls down to low.

Two quick presses should allow me to get to medium with no preflash. Well. It doesn't. When I do two quick presses, I get low, a brief preflash to high, before settling in to medium. So in theory I could have 0.08 lumens, a brief 475 lumen flash before settling into 7 lumens.

This is garbage.

Now I need to decide if the new firmware is the deciding factor in keeping or returning the light. I have enough lights. Maybe I need to wait for the next run or next models to fix the firmware bugs.

 

[gunga]

Oh well.

Might be worth keeping but still use the old firmware. The one advantage is that you can program every level. I'm finding m1 too bright. I'll just reprogram it to a lower level.

 

[Shred]

I received my H53Fc yesterday. It's the first new head lamp I've bought in seven years and is a huge step forward from my trusty old Fenix HL20. It puts out a very even light for reading in bed at night and the higher CRI make working in the garden after dark much better too.

I'll be playing with the various modes for quite a while, fine tuning things I think.

 

[Offgridled]

I think I finally found a throwier alternative for the boost-less H53 line: :rock:

Thats a must have .

 

[TCY]

I received my H53Fc yesterday. It's the first new head lamp I've bought in seven years and is a huge step forward from my trusty old Fenix HL20. It puts out a very even light for reading in bed at night and the higher CRI make working in the garden after dark much better too.

I'll be playing with the various modes for quite a while, fine tuning things I think.

Congrats:twothumbs

 

[Genzod]

My discussion concerning run time here will revolve around the XP-L2 emitter (used in the H53c and H53w) compared to the XM-L2 of the former generation (used in the H52w).

Total gains in luminous power are 9% going from the XM-L2 to the XP-L, and 7.7% going from the XP-L to the XP-L2. Taken together there is a leap of 17.393%. Since there is no H52c, I will compare the "w" versions between the two generations. The H52w had a max output of 280 lm, and the newer H53w has an output of 330 lumens--a 17.86% increase in power. That seems consistent.

I made OTF efficacy vs. OTF Output regressions between the H52w and H53w to demonstrate the increase. Unfortunately Zebralight seems to have had some problems with a couple data points that are way out of range with the expected distribution. One seems to be due to a typo, a confusion between 17 hours run time and 12 hours run time, and the other is possibly due to overheating or a general step down shortening the run time.

Plotted (at FooPlot) are Efficacy (lm/W) verses Output (lumens) for the red data points of the H52w and the pink data points of the H53w. The red curve is a regression with the corrected 12/17 hour run time data point. The pink curve is simply a multiplication of the red curve by 1.25. That is fairly consistent with the 18% difference in efficacy we expect from the two different LEDs.

The black and blue curves are merely relaxed regressions that were derived with the errant/deviant points maintained in each set of data. Regression allows a scientist to form curves through scattered data to find a generalized trend. Scatter can be the result of poor experimental procedure or variables that the scientist isn't interested in tracking.

You can turn off the relaxed regressions by deleting them. You can change colors of the data points and curves. This plot makes the curves and data more clear. You can now see how far off ZL missed the 330 lm output data point of the H53w as well as the 25 lm output data point of the H52w.

If you want run time at any particular point on each curve (pink and red curve), use the Fooplot point tool (point mouse over graph and select point on line icon, then click a point on a curve) to find values of interest on each curve. Then multiply that number by 3.06 (for Eneloop Pro capacity) or 2.4 (for Eneloop capacity). Then divide by the output lumens to get run time. (see equations at bottom of this post).

Conclusions: ZL raised the max output between generations 18% with no little or no run time gain. Had the outputs always remained the same between generations, and similar batteries are compared, you would expect to see an 18% increase in run time. If any outputs are close, you can expect a run time increase close to 18%. For example: looking at the 12 lumen output on both data sets (the only equal output), the compared efficacies are 161/135 = 19.3% increase (translates to increased run time), which is close to the output improvement of 17.4% between generations.

Note: It is unclear if the same rules were observed by ZL in determining run time we observed in both headlamp tests.

The following data were used to compile curves:


ZL-H53w 4500K Eneloop Pro AA (1.2x2550 Capacity)

(OTF lm, hours, OTF lumen-hours, OTF lumen/watt)

330 0.9 297 97.1 THIS WAS OFF. Probably (but maybe not) due to a thermal or general step down shortening run time. Ignoring temperature or battery performance, the OTF efficacy would probably be around 125-140

275 1.6 440 144
198 2.3 455.4 149
122 4.2 512.4 167
65 8.5 552.5 181
30 21 630 206
12 41 492 161
1.2 13x24 374.4 122
0.31 1.1x30x24 245.52 80.2
0.07 2.2x30x24 110.88 36.2
0.013 3.3x30x24 30.888 10.1​

ZL-H52w 4400K Eneloop AA (1.2x2000 Capacity)

(OTF lm, hours, OTF lumen-hours, OTF lumen/watt)

280 0.9 252 105
172 1.7 292.4 122
108 3 324 135
50 7.5 375 156

25 12 300 125 THIS WAS OFF Should be around 172 lm/W with 17 hours of run time (not 12)-- probably a ZL misread typo between 12 and 17.

12 27 324 135
2.7 4x24 259.2 108
0.34 3x7x24 171.36 71.4
0.06 2x30x24 86.4 36.0
0.01 3x30x24 21.6 9.0


Run Time Equations

HOURS = (OTF lm/W)*(3.06) / OUTPUT LM (Eneloop PROs)
HOURS = (OTF lm/W)*(2.40) / OUTPUT LM (Eneloop)​

 

[Offgridled]

Great info Genzod . Thank you!!

 

[Genzod]

Great info Genzod . Thank you!!

Looks like I squeezed in my conclusion corrections just in time. Just to be safe, check that again.

 

[JBS]

Can anyone directly compare the Zebralight H53Fc to the H502w? I have the H502w and I'd like to know if the H53Fc would be a noticeable upgrade.
H53Fc: http://www.zebralight.com/H53Fc-AA-Headlamp-Floody-Neutral-White-High-CRI_p_195.html
H502w: http://www.zebralight.com/H502w-L2-AA-Flood-Headlamp-Neutral-White_p_141.html

 

[tech25]

I don't have the H502w, however the beam shapes are different. The H502w is a flood beam where the H53fc is floody with a hotspot. The "F" beam shapes are more general purpose, reaching out a bit further then the H502w flood beam.

One difference that you would gain, is the "C" would be more consistent in the beam color and giving you better color rendition over the "W".