Zebralight SC64c

[Tixx]

Surprised this light did not use the same emitter choice as the H600Fc Mk IV 18650 XHP50.2 Floody 4000K High CRI Headlamp for an extra 668 lumens on high.

• Cree XHP50.2 Neutral White LED
  • Nominal CCT: 4000K
  • Typical CRI: 93-95
  • Tint deviation: 3-step
• High: H1 1568 Lm (PID, )

 

[easilyled]

Surprised this light did not use the same emitter choice as the H600Fc Mk IV 18650 XHP50.2 Floody 4000K High CRI Headlamp for an extra 668 lumens on high.

• Cree XHP50.2 Neutral White LED
  • Nominal CCT: 4000K
  • Typical CRI: 93-95
  • Tint deviation: 3-step
• High: H1 1568 Lm (PID, )

Maybe they didn't want quite such a floody beam. The beam angle in the above light is 120 degrees, whereas in the SC64c its an 80 degree spill with a 12 degree hotspot. :shrug:

 

[iamlucky13]

Surprised this light did not use the same emitter choice as the H600Fc Mk IV 18650 XHP50.2 Floody 4000K High CRI Headlamp for an extra 668 lumens on high.

• Cree XHP50.2 Neutral White LED
  • Nominal CCT: 4000K
  • Typical CRI: 93-95
  • Tint deviation: 3-step
• High: H1 1568 Lm (PID, )

Floody beams are more popular on headlamps than conventional flashlights like the SC64. Even without a frosted lens, the XHP50.2 would have a very broad beam in that small reflector.

If anything, I'd have expected a high CRI XHP35 to match the other SC64 Mk IV variants. I wonder if those are not available, or simply in high demand in other industries.

 

[Tixx]

Maybe they didn't want quite such a floody beam. The beam angle in the above light is 120 degrees, whereas in the SC64c its an 80 degree spill with a 12 degree hotspot. :shrug:

Yeah, would definitely add to the flood

 

[terjee]

Maybe they didn't want quite such a floody beam. The beam angle in the above light is 120 degrees, whereas in the SC64c its an 80 degree spill with a 12 degree hotspot. :shrug:

In addition to this, with the XHP50.2, you basically get four LEDs on one die (IIRC), and that would maybe be noticeable in the beam pattern with the SC64c, while the frosting on the F would smooth it out. The SC600w does use an XHP50.2 LED, but I seem to recall the SC600-series blending the light more/better than the SC64-series does? Would perhaps be interesting if they made an SC600c or SC600Fc, with XHP50.2?

Edit to add: See Tacheads post a bit below.

 

[Tachead]

Maybe they didn't want quite such a floody beam. The beam angle in the above light is 120 degrees, whereas in the SC64c its an 80 degree spill with a 12 degree hotspot. :shrug:

Yeah, the XHP50.2 would have a very floody beam in that small of a reflector. Not to mention, it would likely step down faster on high due to the higher output and highly boosted driver. Only so much output is practical in a light with this little heatsink ability. I am surprised they are driving it so hard in the H600 lights frankly. Another thing to note is the XP-L2 is a 2-step binned emitter where as the XHP50.2 is only a 3-step.

 

[Tachead]

In addition to this, with the XHP50.2, you basically get four LEDs on one die (IIRC), and that would maybe be noticeable in the beam pattern with the SC64c, while the frosting on the F would smooth it out. The SC600w does use an XHP50.2 LED, but I seem to recall the SC600-series blending the light more/better than the SC64-series does? Would perhaps be interesting if they made an SC600c or SC600Fc, with XHP50.2?

The XHP50.2's dies are extremely close together like the XHP35 so, there should be no issues with beam artifacts like with the XHP50. Notice the difference...

 

[terjee]

The XHP50.2's dies are extremely close together like the XHP35 so, there should be no issues with beam artifacts like with the XHP50. Notice the difference...

Nice! I missed that, sorry and thank you!

 

[Tachead]

Nice! I missed that, sorry and thank you!

No problem:thumbsup:.

 

[phantom23]

The XHP50.2's dies are extremely close together like the XHP35 so, there should be no issues with beam artifacts like with the XHP50. Notice the difference...

Distance between the dies is pretty much the same in both but in the 50.2 they're all covered with the same layer of phosphor. Single die activates slightly bigger area of the phospor than the die itself slightly covering the gap. That's why there are less artifacts.

 

[ven]

Are these quad dies XP-G3 in the 50.2 ? The 70.2 XP-L2? Anyone confirm

 

[Tachead]

Distance between the dies is pretty much the same in both but in the 50.2 they're all covered with the same layer of phosphor. Single die activates slightly bigger area of the phospor than the die itself slightly covering the gap. That's why there are less artifacts.

It was my understanding that the dies were moved closer together in addition to the new coarser phosphor coating that covers the whole emitter? The dies sure appear to be closer together when you look at the emitter while lit.

 

[twistedraven]

Yes for both the 50.2 and 70.2 the dies have been moved closer together. The new 50.2s are very close to how the XHP35 looks.

 

[Tachead]

Has anyone else noticed that the SC64c specs say that only the two highest output levels are PID regulated but, the SC64 and SC64w specs say the three highest output modes are PID regulated? I wonder if this is a typo? If not, it looks like the "c" will have a higher constant(not thermal regulated) output level.

 

[ingokl]

I don't think it's a typo. The given characteristic results from ZL's (from my perspective logical) choice of brightness levels, which is based on the light's maximum output. The 64w utilizes a Cree XHP35 LED, the 64c a Cree XP-L2. In general both LED have a very similar efficiency, but the XHP35 can be driven much harder. The maximal specified power of the XP-L2 is around 9 Watt, that of the XHP35 almost 13W. Therefore the 50% higher max output of the 64w compared to the 64c is not (only) based on a better efficiency of the LED but to a very high extent on a much higher driver power on max level. At "low" brightness levels of around 500 LED lumens an average XHP35 NW CRI 80+ LED is "only" about 20% more efficient than an average high CRI XP-L2 (depending on the specific bin of both LED). As the relative steps between brightness levels in both ZLs are similar and based on their maximum lumen output, the second H2 level of the 64w (502 lumen) is more than 44% brighter (lumen wise) than the second H2 level of the 64c (348 lumen). And even beeing more efficient the XHP35 of the 64w needs more power (around +30%) for the 502 lumen output than the 64c's XP-L2 for the 348 lumen. Obviously this additional power is enough to need the PID regulation. If ZL had chosen the same absolute H2 output levels for the 64w as for the 64c the second H2 level would not be thermal regulated and the 64w would provide better runtimes on these H2 levels than the 64c (given similar efficiency of the driver circuitry).
So yes... the consequence of this choice of lumen levels is indeed that the 64c has a higher maximal non thermal regulated output level (348 lumen) than the 64w (264 lumen), but with less runtime.

 

[ingokl]

ZebraLight just updated the data für the SC64c. The lowest L2 level is 0.12 lumen now. That is more than ten times higher than the "firefly mode" of the older models SC63W and the SC62W (which I have and in my opinion is almost perfect). I find the 0.06 lumen level to be extremely useful, although I sometimes even prefer the 0.01 lumen mode. Is there anybody else for whom a minimum of 0.12 lumen would be too high and a considerable drawback or even stop him from wanting this light?

 

[Tachead]

ZebraLight just updated the data für the SC64c. The lowest L2 level is 0.12 lumen now. That is more than ten times higher than the "firefly mode" of the older models SC63W and the SW62W (which I have and in my opinion is almost perfect). I find the 0.06 lumen level to be extremely useful, although I sometimes even prefer the 0.01 lumen mode. Is there anybody else for whom a minimum of 0.12 lumen would be too high and a considerable drawback or even stop him from wanting this light?

I too am annoyed by this change as one of the reasons I buy ZL's is because of their very low moonlight modes. The pre-order has been up for a couple of weeks now and many people have paid for these lights. To change the specifications after people have bought the light based on the ones that were posted is a bit of a shady move on ZL's part. I don't know why they would do this especially on a "c" model which is the one people buy for late night use.

 

[Tixx]

Damn! Raising moonlight low is not cool!

 

[terjee]

I've preordered it, and consider the change in spec to be a drawback. Would probably still have ordered it, but low lows is high on the list of why I choose ZL.
To he honest I can't definitively recall if I checked the lowest before ordering it.

 

[Derek Dean]

Possibly their production run came out somewhat different from what they expected. Well, nobody is perfect, not even Zebralight, and stuff happens. I'm happy I still have my SC62w, as I use it's second lowest level several times a night.