# Anything better than the Fenix PD30?



## Corvette6769 (Apr 28, 2009)

I see the overseas dealers like DX, KD, and on eBay offering Cree Premium R2 flashlights like Solarforce and UltraFire with vague and/or unrealistic claims of 250 to 300 "manufacturer rated" or "max output" lumens, but I want a quality light that truly meets or exceeds its lumen rating.

While I am surprised that Fenix is not installing the more desirable Cree Premium R2 in the PD30, I am still considering purchasing a Fenix PD30 to replace my Fenix P3D for every day carry unless someone can point me to a better alternative (same or superior features, power, and quality). 

Is there a quality flashlight the same size (118mm x 21.5mm / 4.65" x .85") or smaller than the Fenix PD30 that puts out 220 or more lumens?


----------



## Bluehinder (Apr 29, 2009)

Short answer, no.

There are some equivelent lights. Nitecore NEX, SF E1E with LF bulbs or TLS head. SF E1B not as bright but outstanding.

You're flipping coins at this point. UI and form factor probably more important.


----------



## polkiuj (Apr 29, 2009)

Sorry to burst your bubble but the Fenix PD30 DOES NOT put out 220 (out the front) lumens. It's probably emitter lumens. Only Fenix's T series seem to quote out the front lumens.

There is actually, but not regulated. Most single cell Li-ion direct driven will put out over 200 lumens.

Surefire L1, LD10 on 17500, etc, etc. Must be direct driven. Only puts that out for a short time.

As for 2xCR123, Eagletac P10C2 should put out 225 lumens. Malkoff's drop-ins will also make 220+ lumens. Milky modded lights will do 240+ lumens. E2DL might hit 200 if you're lucky. Others may but not sure. These are the tested ones.


----------



## MichaelW (Apr 29, 2009)

If Fenix says 1.5 hours for the TK11 on 2 cr123a [turbo 225 lumens]
and 1.5 hours at 220 lumens with 2 cr123a in the PD30

and 10 hours at 60 lumens TK11
vs. 8 hours at 70 lumens PD30

are they not both Q5 bin? how are they not both OTF outputs.


----------



## Henk_Lu (Apr 29, 2009)

I love my PD30 because it fits better in my large hands than the PD20. The output is higher and the runtime is longer. As it is the only light in my collection with 2xCR123A which isn't tactical, I suppose that there is no better! 

Seriously, I didn't see an alternative to it yet, either I use a one cell because it fits better in my pocket or I take a tactical because they have a better beam.

I suppose that Fenix will come with the R2s soon, Olight put them in their whole collection now, plus the infinitum UI. So, the I20 R2 Premium is 1 centimeter longer, a little bit cheaper, a little bit more tactical, a little bit brighter. Perhaps I just found an alternative?


----------



## polkiuj (Apr 29, 2009)

TK11 has a bigger head.

Both Eagletac T10C2 and P10C2 has 295 emitter lumens. Yet the T10C2 makes 255 out the front lumens while the P10C2 only manages 225. 

My Fenix LD10 is rated 120 lumens but it has less total with output with 1xNiMH than my Inova T1 which is rated (and tested by MrGman) 100 lumens. I'd say the LD10 is about 80 - 90 out the front lumens which is quite a bit less than the 120 claimed lumens. 

Of course, it puts out approximately 2.8x more light with a 17500. Yes I've tested it.


----------



## Marlinaholic (Apr 29, 2009)

Well, it depends how you define "better". The Fenix P3D Q5 (which I assume is pretty darn close to the PD30) will put out 2074 lux spot/67 lux spill for 5.5 hours. The E2L Outdoorsman Surefire on high will put out 2930 lux spot/85 lux spill for 6 hours, 5 minutes. So as you can see, the Surefire actually beats the Fenix when the Fenix is on high, both in output and runtime according to Flashlight Reviews. Now on Turbo the Fenix will put out more light, but at the cost of runtime. For pure horsepower, the Fenix wins, but in high mode vs the E2L, the Surefire wins on both runtime/output. The E2L is more of a thrower, the Fenix is more of a flood, so that makes a difference in perceived brightness too.


----------



## dcycleman (Apr 29, 2009)

yeah, those e2ls are deceptively bright. If I could only keep one it would be that one.


----------



## Corvette6769 (May 1, 2009)

polkiuj said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble but the Fenix PD30 DOES NOT put out 220 (out the front) lumens. It's probably emitter lumens. Only Fenix's T series seem to quote out the front lumens.
> 
> There is actually, but not regulated. Most single cell Li-ion direct driven will put out over 200 lumens.
> 
> ...


 
I own both the Fenix P3D (rated 215 lumens) and and a Fenix TK10 (rated 225 lumens) and see almost no difference in actual light output (other than slightly different beam pattern). Since they both use the same 2xCR123 batteries and Cree Premium Q5 LED (same emitter lumens) I assume Fenix rates all their flashlights by out-the-front lumens. As I recall all Fenix lights are direct drive in Turbo Mode.

Since the Cree Premium Q5 easily exceeds 225 emitter lumens, what makes you think that Fenix rates some models by emitter lumens and others by out-the-front lumens and why would they do that?


----------



## richardcpf (May 1, 2009)

Marlinaholic said:


> The Fenix P3D Q5 will put out 2074 lux spot/67 lux spill for 5.5 hours. The E2L Outdoorsman Surefire on high will put out 2930 lux spot/85 lux spill for 6 hours, 5 minutes.


 
You are skipping the *beam size*. The surefire can do more than the fenix in numbers, but the hotspot and the spill are WAY smaller in diameter.

If you measure a aspherical light you will get 30k+ lux and you'll say holy s*** thats bright, but the beam is so small, it becomes useless in most situations.

Surefires are designed for throw, fenixs are designed for general use. We shouldnt go into another throw vs overall output discussion.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (May 1, 2009)

The SureFire E2DL totally kills the PD30.


----------



## Marduke (May 1, 2009)

polkiuj said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble but the Fenix PD30 DOES NOT put out 220 (out the front) lumens. *It's probably emitter lumens. *




Sorry to burst your bubble, but the PD30 DOES put >200 OTF lumens. So does the P3D-Q5.


----------



## WadeF (May 1, 2009)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> The SureFire E2DL totally kills the PD30.



Depends on what you want to use it for. Yeah, the E2DL out throws the PD30, but if you want a beam with more flood, larger hot spot, the PD30 would be better. The PD30 should have more total out the front lumens as well, but I think some of the E2DL's are out performing their rated specs so it may depend on the E2DL.


----------



## Corvette6769 (May 1, 2009)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> The SureFire E2DL totally kills the PD30.


 
How is this possible with the SureFire E2DL being almost an inch longer, more than twice the weight, double the price, and only putting out 120 lumens?


----------



## Corvette6769 (May 2, 2009)

polkiuj said:


> ...Both Eagletac T10C2 and P10C2 has 295 emitter lumens. Yet the T10C2 makes 255 out the front lumens while the P10C2 only manages 225.


 
All I see on their website is emitter lumen ratings. Where did you find the out-the-front lumen ratings for the Eagletac T10C2 and P10C2 ?


----------



## Marduke (May 2, 2009)

Corvette6769 said:


> All I see on their website is emitter lumen ratings. Where did you find the out-the-front lumen ratings for the Eagletac T10C2 and P10C2 ?



https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/229135


----------



## Corvette6769 (May 2, 2009)

Wow what a great thread that is! Thank you for the link. I sure wish I could find list like that containing more of the newer Fenix models like LD01, TK10, TK11, P3D, PD20, and PD30.


----------



## jhc37013 (May 2, 2009)

Corvette6769 said:


> I see the overseas dealers like DX, KD, and on eBay offering Cree Premium R2 flashlights like Solarforce and UltraFire with vague and/or unrealistic claims of 250 to 300 "manufacturer rated" or "max output" lumens, but I want a quality light that truly meets or exceeds its lumen rating.
> 
> While I am surprised that Fenix is not installing the more desirable Cree Premium R2 in the PD30, I am still considering purchasing a Fenix PD30 to replace my Fenix P3D for every day carry unless someone can point me to a better alternative (same or superior features, power, and quality).
> 
> Is there a quality flashlight the same size (118mm x 21.5mm / 4.65" x .85") or smaller than the Fenix PD30 that puts out 220 or more lumens?



I have not found any light for EDC better than the PD30 or P3DQ5, it is the perfect size not to big not to small which gives it plenty of grip without being to large to carry. I have found carrying a PD30 in the older open top Fenix holster very easy to carry and easy to draw. So right out of the box and into the supplied holster its one heck of EDC light.


----------



## Painful Chafe (May 3, 2009)

There really isn't much benefit going with the PD30 if you have a P3D. They rate it at 5 lumens more on Turbo. You will never see that even if it is truly there. I actually think the P3D has a better beam profile. No rings with a smoother spot spill transition. Maybe they were trying to get more throw out of the PD30. I researched lights this size for a bit, but I didn't see anything that bettered the P3D. If you want something better, you will probably have to get something bigger that can handle the heat.

If I was going to get something of similar size now I would have a serious look at the Olight "I" series with the R2. Probably the I20.(though it is bigger than the PD30, it is still pretty small.)
http://www.batteryjunction.com/olight-i20.html


----------



## Egsise (May 3, 2009)

Corvette6769 said:


> As I recall all Fenix lights are direct drive in Turbo Mode.


Nope, Fenix has 1xCR123, 1xAA and 1xAAA models too.


----------



## Corvette6769 (May 3, 2009)

Painful Chafe said:


> There really isn't much benefit going with the PD30 if you have a P3D. They rate it at 5 lumens more on Turbo. You will never see that even if it is truly there. I actually think the P3D has a better beam profile. No rings with a smoother spot spill transition. Maybe they were trying to get more throw out of the PD30. I researched lights this size for a bit, but I didn't see anything that bettered the P3D. If you want something better, you will probably have to get something bigger that can handle the heat.
> 
> If I was going to get something of similar size now I would have a serious look at the Olight "I" series with the R2. Probably the I20.(though it is bigger than the PD30, it is still pretty small.)
> http://www.batteryjunction.com/olight-i20.html


 
The reason I was considering the PD30 is not the minimal lumen increase over my P3D (which I love and EDC by the way), but rather the 7 other improvements:

Overall newly designed reflector
Optimized circuit
Smoother power switch with U-shaped tail
Double strobe frequency
Larger lanyard ring hole
New rhombic knurling for better grip and anti-roll body
Tactical head
The Olight I20 looks like an interesting alternative and I will look into that further. The customizable user interface may be worth the 10.5mm (0.41") additional length. I am surprised that at 25.6mm diameter that the Olight I20 can not accommodate a rechargeable 18650 Li-Ion cell.


----------



## jake25 (May 3, 2009)

For the price, Solarforce is an excellent brand. Yes their lumen rating is a bit overrated but the build quality is excellent especially for the price.


----------



## Painful Chafe (May 3, 2009)

Corvette6769 said:


> I am surprised that at 25.6mm diameter that the Olight I20 can not accommodate a rechargeable 18650 Li-Ion cell.



You may want to email Battery Junction. The 25.6 may be the largest diameter, which would be the head or the tail(hard to tell).


----------



## richardcpf (May 3, 2009)

Get the surefire ONLY if you are willing to sacrifice overall output, wide and bright flood, *high efficiency* and some extra $90 bucks just to gain a little bit more throw and a expensive brand name etched to it.


----------



## fenixmad (May 3, 2009)

anything better than the PD30 the TK10/TK11 if the circuits don't fail


----------



## MattK (May 3, 2009)

Corvette6769 said:


> I see the overseas dealers like DX, KD, and on eBay offering Cree Premium R2 flashlights like Solarforce and UltraFire with vague and/or unrealistic claims of 250 to 300 "manufacturer rated" or "max output" lumens, but I want a quality light that truly meets or exceeds its lumen rating.




R2's are nearly impossible to get in significant quantities in China still. The better makers like Fenix, etc. can barely get them. Olight has R2's because they're being bought here in the US and shipped from the US to Olight. It causes one to wonder how all of the discount brands/stores can have so many... 



Corvette6769 said:


> Wow what a great thread that is! Thank you for the link. I sure wish I could find list like that containing more of the newer Fenix models like LD01, TK10, TK11, P3D, PD20, and PD30.



The latest models (in no particular order): E20, LD01, LD10, LD20, PD20, PD30, TK20, TK 11 R2, TK20, TK40 - IIRC all of those came out in the past 12 months.



WadeF said:


> Depends on what you want to use it for. Yeah, the E2DL out throws the PD30, but if you want a beam with more flood, larger hot spot, the PD30 would be better. The PD30 should have more total out the front lumens as well, but I think some of the E2DL's are out performing their rated specs so it may depend on the E2DL.



Spot on, sir. (no pun intended)

I'd call total output the same essentially; we've (sphere) tested E2DL's at 160 lumens and lately I've been hearing here that some have been IS tested up to 200. If you assume 150-200 typical OTF (lottery) or a 175 avg and assume say 176 (220*.8) OTF for the PD30 total output isn't going to decide this; it's going to be about price, warranty, UI and other factors. Both great lights - no wrong decision here.



Corvette6769 said:


> The reason I was considering the PD30 is not the minimal lumen increase over my P3D (which I love and EDC by the way), but rather the 7 other improvements:
> 
> Overall newly designed reflector
> Optimized circuit
> ...





Painful Chafe said:


> You may want to email Battery Junction. The 25.6 may be the largest diameter, which would be the head or the tail(hard to tell).



The I20 is a great alternative. That diameter is bezel, not body. The bodies are the same diameter as the T-series which is like 21mm IIRC - big enough for a protected 17670 but not an 18650. The Olight will also surely have more throw; it's reflector is better optimized for throw.


----------



## polkiuj (May 4, 2009)

Wow! I have missed much in the weekend!!



Corvette6769 said:


> How is this possible with the SureFire E2DL being almost an inch longer, more than twice the weight, double the price, and only putting out 120 lumens?



Surefire has a disgusting way of giving lumens quotes. Probably it is 120 minimum guaranteed lumens. Most E2DL puts out 160 - 200+ lumens.




Marduke said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble, but the PD30 DOES put >200 OTF lumens. So does the P3D-Q5.



I surely hope it does. Unlikely based on calculations though. 




Corvette6769 said:


> I own both the Fenix P3D (rated 215 lumens) and and a Fenix TK10 (rated 225 lumens) and see almost no difference in actual light output (other than slightly different beam pattern). Since they both use the same 2xCR123 batteries and Cree Premium Q5 LED (same emitter lumens) I assume Fenix rates all their flashlights by out-the-front lumens. As I recall all Fenix lights are direct drive in Turbo Mode.
> 
> Since the Cree Premium Q5 easily exceeds 225 emitter lumens, what makes you think that Fenix rates some models by emitter lumens and others by out-the-front lumens and why would they do that?



I wonder how you came to this conclusion? 

If you go to CREE's website, and look at their data sheet, you would find that CREE's X-RE Q5 binned outputs 107L @ 350mA. And 220% of that @ 1000mA which is about 235L @ 1000mA. All readings taken @ 25ºC. Fenix is well known not to overdrive their LEDs. So... you have 235 emmiter lumens at a junction temperature of 25ºC. Add in reflector losses, lens losses (does Fenix use UCL? no right? not sure here) and you WILL NOT GET 220 OTF lumens! Now lets add some heat to the equation. You will find, in the same data sheet, that heat will lose you the most output in a white power LED. Up to 30% loss @ 150ºC. I won't expect it to reach 150ºC but it will still account for at least 10% more loss.

Now... lets look at other brands. Eagletac P10C2 puts out 225 OTF lumens (warmed up light, within the tolerence spectrum). Eagletac P10C2 has better (not proven) heatsinking. Eagletac quotes 295 emitter lumens. Eagletac uses a UCL.

According to CREE, Q5 binned XR-E puts out roughly 235 emitter lumens. So... how does the PD30 put out 220 OTF lumens?

And no. You do not direct drive 2xCR123A (and especially not 2xRCR123A) in a X-RE unless you want instant *POOF*




richardcpf said:


> Get the surefire ONLY if you are willing to sacrifice overall output, wide and bright flood, *high efficiency* and some extra $90 bucks just to gain a little bit more throw and a expensive brand name etched to it.



You're forgetting rock solid dependability. The fact that it is a Surefire. It runs an optic instead of a reflector which is cool. It does not sacrifice output at all. It has a usable flood for outdoor use. Fenix is better for indoors. It will also have more value used than a Fenix.



I would like to add my own findings. I own a LD10. It is sharp in certain places. A Surefire is FAR MORE SOLID in FEEL than a Fenix (if it matters to you). My Inova T1 is far more solid than my friend's Surefire. Lol. The Fenix's anodizing has many chips. It's probably due to my negligence but my Inova is still perfect. My Eagletac T10LC2 is also chipped in few places. Surefire's treads are FAR better than Fenix's. Fenix is rated IPX-8. My LD10 survived going in a lake for a swim.


So, Matt. Why don't you end the speculations by telling us what the PD20 really puts out in your sphere?


----------



## Corvette6769 (May 4, 2009)

polkiuj said:


> So, Matt. Why don't you end the speculations by telling us what the PD20 really puts out in your sphere?


 
While you are at it, how about the LD01, TK10, TK11, P3D, and PD30 too.


----------



## Marduke (May 4, 2009)

polkiuj,

The P3D-Q5 and T1 were both tested to put out similar output by the same reviewer. The T1 was later tested in an IS to put out 225 OTF lumens.

So, going back to grade school, if A = B and B = C, then A = C


More recently, the newer PD30 has been measured comparable to the P3D-Q5 it replaced, so we now have A = D if you will...


----------



## MattK (May 4, 2009)

polkiuj said:


> So, Matt. Why don't you end the speculations by telling us what the PD20 really puts out in your sphere?



The sphere was a loaner and has gone back home. As much as I'd like to have one we cannot justify spending ~$25K all-in on one. Besides, testing single units would seem to be somewhat limited in usefulness.


----------



## polkiuj (May 4, 2009)

Marduke said:


> polkiuj,
> 
> The P3D-Q5 and T1 were both tested to put out similar output by the same reviewer. The T1 was later tested in an IS to put out 225 OTF lumens.
> 
> ...



Who is this reviewer? He has access to an IS?

For your info. Fenix quotes L2D-Q5 turbo @ 180 lumens.
Alas... 
Fenix L2D Q5 Turbo__________145__________________2 AA alkalines_______same with NiMH-----------------, 

From Fenix's catalog
P2D CE Features
Turbo Mode: 135 lumens (1hrs) 
Oops...
Fenix P2D CE Turbo,_________104__________________1 primary___________------------------------------------,

I see roughly a 20-25% difference (of course, taking into account the flux range of a bin. I'll assume Fenix is quoting the minimum) between Fenix's quotes and real (hopefully) OTF readings. Which is believable for reflector + optical losses. I would expect the PD30 to be in the region on 180OTF lumens.

Also, I've mentioned before that the X-RE Q5 only manages a min. flux of 235 lumens @ 1A, 25ºC. Unless Fenix has Ali3N OptiCs™ technology that is 96% efficient and PowerFreeze tech that can keep the junction temperature of the LED @ 25ºC, getting 225 lumens out the front is downright IMPOSSIBLE.

Now the T1 seems to be a different beast. Could it be a good lottery. Or the bigger head? Or that the T1 is indeed quoted as OTF lumens? Interestingly enough, the T1's "low" beam seems to put out less lumens than claimed.  I can't figure the T1 out =(

On an interesting sidenote, the LD10(PD20, etc) driven of a 14500 should be putting out 200+ lumens! I've measured a 2.8x difference in lux readings which should mean a 2.8x difference in total output! I expect the LD10 to put out roughly 80 lumens (think about it, if Fenix does quote OTF lumens, 120 X 2.8 = 336!!!!). It gets hot on turbo speed too and I expect it to burn the LED if left on it's own or used for too long. The heatsinking capabilities of the PD30 head should be the same as the LD10. If the PD30 does get driven on the same level as LD10 on 14500, it will have heat issues sooner rather than later. I believe this is not something that a company like Fenix will do. 

Does anyone have a lux meter, a LOP LD10 and a LOP PD30. Please do some readings. I got 2710 lux on LD10 NiMH(warm LED) and 7610 lux on 14500. I think we can gage the PD30's output if we have some readings. =)

IS lumens readings taken from MrGman's tests.




MattK said:


> The sphere was a loaner and has gone back home. As much as I'd like to have one we cannot justify spending ~$25K all-in on one. Besides, testing single units would seem to be somewhat limited in usefulness.



Agreed. But it does give us some clues of a light's capabilities. =)


----------



## Marduke (May 4, 2009)

polkiuj said:


> Who is this reviewer? He has access to an IS?
> 
> For your info. Fenix quotes L2D-Q5 turbo @ 180 lumens.
> Alas...
> ...



I'm talking about the P3D-Q5 and PD30, NOT the LD head.

No, the reviewer did not have an IS, but a well calibrated lightbox which can easily relate the various lights he tests. MrGman then was able to measure some in his IS, giving us a calibration factor.

The PD30 and P3D-Q5 are without a doubt both >200 OTF lumens.

BTW, you cannot correlate change in lux with change in overall brightness. Hence the error in your lumen "estimations"


----------



## polkiuj (May 4, 2009)

Marduke said:


> I'm talking about the P3D-Q5 and PD30, NOT the LD head.
> 
> No, the reviewer did not have an IS, but a well calibrated lightbox which can easily relate the various lights he tests. MrGman then was able to measure some in his IS, giving us a calibration factor.
> 
> ...



I know that you are talking about the P3 heads. I just pointed out Fenix's history (on both L and P lights) of overestimating lumens on the D series lights. As you can clearly see, both L2D and P2D-CE are overestimated (Note that P2D-CE uses the X-RE Q3 emitter which is only slightly less bright than the Q5).

Also note that LD and PD heads are the SAME. Only difference is P3 heads use a different circuit. L1/L2/P2 heads are exactly the same except for the markings on them. So therefore, L1, L2, P2 and P3 will have the same optical performance.

I do hope that P3 heads does manage 200+ OTF lumens but based on real world estimations, calculations (please note that X-RE Q5 puts out roughly 235 emitter lumens) and history, it is highly unlikely. And to put out 220 OTF lumens is pretty much impossible.

And why is it that you can't estimate lumens from lux readings? I'm only comparing the SAME light driven by different batteries. The beam characteristics (amout of hotspot, spill, etc) DOES NOT change. Hence to get double the hotspot brightness, you must therefore put out double the output. Kindly prove me wrong here.

Don't get me wrong here. Fenix is a good company making good lights. But they can do better. I'm not dissing them in any way but TRUTH IS TRUTH.


----------



## Marduke (May 4, 2009)

polkiuj said:


> I know that you are talking about the P3 heads. I just pointed out Fenix's history (on both L and P lights) of overestimating lumens on the D series lights. As you can clearly see, both L2D and P2D-CE are overestimated (Note that P2D-CE uses the X-RE Q3 emitter which is only slightly less bright than the Q5).



Actually the CE series uses P4 or better. Only a limited edition was a low Q bin.



polkiuj said:


> Also note that LD and PD heads are the SAME. Only difference is P3 heads use a different circuit. L1/L2/P2 heads are exactly the same except for the markings on them. *So therefore, L1, L2, P2 and P3 will have the same optical performance.*



The PD20 and LD20 and LD10 heads (P2D, L2D, L1D) are the same. The PD30 (P3D) head is COMPLETELY different.



polkiuj said:


> I do hope that P3 heads does manage 200+ OTF lumens but based on real world estimations, calculations (please note that X-RE Q5 puts out roughly 235 emitter lumens) and history, it is highly unlikely. And to put out 220 OTF lumens is pretty much impossible.



Based on YOUR estimations. Based on CALIBRATED estimations, the PD30/P3D-Q5 does put out >200 OTF. Your "estimations" appear to be based off lux measurements, which CANNOT be equated to total brightness.

Just because the LxD head is quoted at the emitter doesn't mean the rest of the brand is.

Take the P3D-CE for example. Advertised at 135 on turbo, it was tested by chevrofreak at >130 on startup. To calibrate his setup with an IS, he tested the T1 at ~220 on startup. This sets his rig nearly spot on with MrGman's IS, actually at 2.3% low. That puts the P3D-CE tested at ~133 OTF lumens. It also sets the Fenix P3D/PD30 spot on with advertised claims for OTF lumens.

By studying other calibrated lightbox readings from reviewers such as selfbuilt, you can correlate other lights, such as the P3D-CE to P3D-Q5, to the PD30, etc.



polkiuj said:


> And why is it that you can't estimate lumens from lux readings? I'm only comparing the SAME light driven by different batteries. The beam characteristics (amout of hotspot, spill, etc) DOES NOT change. Hence to get double the hotspot brightness, you must therefore put out double the output. Kindly prove me wrong here.



There is a non-linear relationship lux and total output. It takes about 4 times the brightness to equal twice the lux. This can varry from light to light, but it's a good rule of thumb.



polkiuj said:


> Don't get me wrong here. Fenix is a good company making good lights. But they can do better. I'm not dissing them in any way but TRUTH IS TRUTH.



Exactly, and a whole lot of very smart reviewers with lots of technical equipment don't agree with your "estimations".

BTW, how is it "impossible" when the T1 clearly manages 225? Is 215-220 that much of a stretch? The P3D/PD30 only uses a SLIGHTLY lower drive current.


----------



## polkiuj (May 5, 2009)

Hmm.. I wonder where did I read that the CE uses a Q3. Now I can't find it anywhere. Lol. 

The LD10, LD20, PD20 and PD30 share the same reflector and lens right? So they are optically the same! So how is it completely different? Of course I know that the PD30 uses a different circuit.

The LD and PD are from the same series, i.e. the D(igital) series. If Fenix quotes LD on emitter and PD on OTF then it's a brand I would stay away from. Different standards on the same series is unacceptable.

How does it take 4x the overall output to put out 2x the lux?? My LD10 puts out 2710 lux on NiMH and 7610 lux on 14500. So... assuming my LD10 puts out 80 lumens OTF, to shoot 7610 lux would mean it has close to 450 lumens OTF based on your assumption!! WOW!! Monster!! But a celing bounce reveals that my T10LC2 is putting out more OTF lumens and T10LC2 should be about 250 OTF lumens. And the LD10 is closer to 200(ish) lumens.

Lets look at Eagletac. T10C2 255 lumens. P10C2 225 lumens. Both are driven @ 1.2A and Eagletac quotes 295 emitter lumens (lets assume this as min). Q5 bin has a 6.5% difference in min and max flux (107L - 114L, if my memory is working).
225 lumens X 1.065 = 240 lumens. Not even close to 255 lumens, so the reflector must play a role in converting emitter lumens to OTF.
Eagletac uses a UCL which is already the best in light transmission. Now lets assume both these lights are at the bottom of the Q5 bin (because the results are worse if it's at the top).
T10C2 only manages 86.5% of it's emitter output.
P10C2 only manages 76.3% of it's emitter output.

Now, if Fenix does not overdrive (which their famous for, I'm not sure on this) the LED, the Q5 should be driven @ 1A and puts out 235 lumens. IF the optical performance matches the T10C2 (which should be about a T1?), it will put out roughly 86.5% of the emitter or 203 OTF lumens.
But the PD30 most closely matches the P10C2 which has a smaller head and (possibly) a slightly more inefficient reflector. It should therefore put out about 76.3% of the emitter or 180 OTF lumens.

But, if Fenix does indeed overdrive their LED, then we should see 200+ OTF lumens. =)


----------



## Egsise (May 5, 2009)

polkiuj said:


> How does it take 4x the overall output to put out 2x the lux?? My LD10 puts out 2710 lux on NiMH and 7610 lux on 14500. So... assuming my LD10 puts out 80 lumens OTF, to shoot 7610 lux would mean it has close to 450 lumens OTF based on your assumption!! WOW!! Monster!! But a celing bounce reveals that my T10LC2 is putting out more OTF lumens and T10LC2 should be about 250 OTF lumens. And the LD10 is closer to 200(ish) lumens.



If you use 14500 in LD10 you overdrive the led.
Lux are just lux, you can't convert lux to lumens.
Ceiling bounce lux could be better.
Build a lightbox and measure the different lights and stop guessing?


----------



## jirik_cz (May 5, 2009)

polkiuj said:


> How does it take 4x the overall output to put out 2x the lux?? My LD10 puts out 2710 lux on NiMH and 7610 lux on 14500.



I'm afraid that it is impossible to get 7610 lux with LD10 even with 14500 battery. There must be something wrong with your data. Maybe you should rerun the measurement


----------



## polkiuj (May 6, 2009)

> If you use 14500 in LD10 you overdrive the led.
> Lux are just lux, you can't convert lux to lumens.
> Ceiling bounce lux could be better.
> Build a lightbox and measure the different lights and stop guessing?



And why not? The light uses the same reflector, lens, LED, etc. Surely the amount of light produces correlates to the throw of the light. I know that lux and lumens on different lights are not related but this is the same light we are talking about.

Ceiling bounces are unfortunately not so accurate because the direction the light points at will affect the reading. I did do a ceiling bounce with my LD10 and the 14500 puts out more than 2.5x the lux of NiMH.

Lightboxes are even worse as the light would not integrate in it properly, giving false readings.




jirik_cz said:


> I'm afraid that it is impossible to get 7610 lux with LD10 even with 14500 battery. There must be something wrong with your data. Maybe you should rerun the measurement



That's what I thought!! But I've run it three times on three different occasions!!!! I'm very very surprised by the results as well.

I was thinking that I have faulty readings but here are some of my readings. It all looks fine to me!!

LD10 low 89.73 lux (warm)
LD10 med 1, 083 lux (warm)
LD10 high 2, 328 lux (warm)
LD10 turbo 2, 710 lux (warm, control unit)
LD10 14500 7, 610 lux (turn on)
Inova T1 2, 690 lux (warm)
Eagletac T10LC2 med 2, 830 lux (warm)
Eagletac T10LC2 high 10, 686 lux (warm)

Do you think my readings are faulty?? I think I'll re-do the tests this weekend. See if anything changes. I realize that my 14500 readings are way higher than what others are getting but it is in line with what a direct driven X-RE Q5. I wonder why... Hmm...


----------



## jirik_cz (May 6, 2009)

polkiuj said:


> LD10 low 89.73 lux (warm)
> LD10 med 1, 083 lux (warm)
> LD10 high 2, 328 lux (warm)
> LD10 turbo 2, 710 lux (warm, control unit)
> ...



Probably there have to be something wrong with your 14500 reading 

My measurements with LD10 SMO:
low: 180 lux
med: 980 lux
high: 2130 lux
turbo: 2510 lux
turbo 14500: 3960 lux (according to ceiling bounce test and comparison with other lights it has around 210 lumens)

PD30 SMO turbo: 4650 lux


----------



## Marduke (May 6, 2009)

polkiuj said:


> And why not? The light uses the same reflector, lens, LED, etc. Surely the amount of light produces correlates to the throw of the light. I know that lux and lumens on different lights are not related but this is the same light we are talking about.



We've already explained that.



polkiuj said:


> Lightboxes are even worse as the light would not integrate in it properly, giving false readings.



That's the whole point of a lightbox is to "smear" the results to get a repeatable, comparable value. That is also the entire purpose of an IS is to "smear" the result to obtain a true reading of overall output.


----------



## polkiuj (May 6, 2009)

jirik_cz said:


> Probably there have to be something wrong with your 14500 reading
> 
> My measurements with LD10 SMO:
> low: 180 lux
> ...



Hmm... My LD10 must be some kind of monster... And... How come my low is so much lower!! =( When tested with my eyes, 14500 was close to my T10LC2. It's not gonna throw that far with only ~4000 lux. Nevermind. I'll re-test (I have the P100A2 in my hands now too! I'll compare that as well) this weekend.

This is driving me mad. Lol. 




Marduke said:


> We've already explained that.



OK... lets put some calculations into place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lux

lux = lumens/m(squared)
so... 100 lumens focused into a 1x1 meter area will light up that square meter with an illuminance of 100 lux. (100/(1x1))
if we double the output to 200 lumens, focused into the same 1x1 meter area, it will light up the same square meter with an illuminance of 200 lux. (200/(1x1))

So therefore, when you double the output, you will effectively double the throw.

The 4x the output to get 2x the throw ONLY APPLIES to our visual perception. Yes, it takes 4x the brightness for us to see 2x the difference but this does not apply to the amount of light or throw that a light actually produces, only what we actually see.


----------



## Corvette6769 (May 8, 2009)

This thread seems to have strayed a little. 

However it appears that the consensus here is that while there may be others somewhat equal, there is no other quality flashlight the same size as, or smaller than, the Fenix PD30, that puts out 220 or more lumens.


----------



## HKJ (May 8, 2009)

polkiuj said:


> lux = lumens/m(squared)
> so... 100 lumens focused into a 1x1 meter area will light up that square meter with an illuminance of 100 lux. (100/(1x1))
> if we double the output to 200 lumens, focused into the same 1x1 meter area, it will light up the same square meter with an illuminance of 200 lux. (200/(1x1))
> 
> ...




You calculations are correct, but you conclusion are not, because throw is about distance. Double the lumen, will give double the lux at the same distance, but if you double the distance, you need to light up four times the area and for that you need for times the lumens, to get the same brightness.

I.e. you 1x1 meter square, will increase to a 2x2 meter square, if you double the distance (as long as you have the same beam). To get the same illumination on that 2x2 meter square, you need four times the lumen.


----------



## polkiuj (May 9, 2009)

Corvette6769: So sorry... Anyway..

I'm not sure, will have to do some searching to find a light that will beat the PD30 in your aspects (it might not exist) xD. If you want a bright like crazy light just carry a 1 cell light with a boost only circuit and a spare 3.7V AW lithium-ion battery. It should beat the PD30 (at least for a few minutes?) on output, is smaller to boot. Negatives include not a very useful light (no more modes), not bright for long (follows the Li-ion discharge curve, i.e. non regulated), risk of burning LED, very hot light. Oh... and voiding the warranty. xD






HKJ said:


> You calculations are correct, but you conc


----------



## MrGman (May 10, 2009)

">Take the P3D-CE for example. Advertised at 135 on turbo, it was tested by chevrofreak at >130 on startup. To calibrate his setup with an IS, he tested the T1 at ~220 on startup. This sets his rig nearly spot on with MrGman's IS, actually at 2.3% low. That puts the P3D-CE tested at ~133 OTF lumens. It also sets the Fenix P3D/PD30 spot on with advertised claims for OTF lumens.

By studying other calibrated lightbox readings from reviewers such as selfbuilt, you can correlate other lights, such as the P3D-CE to P3D-Q5, to the PD30, etc."

I don't believe that this correlation will work. There are differences in how fast meters will read and whether or not they are integrating over time even the initial reading. The digital readout of the IS SC5500 system when I shut off autorange is very fast. The fall off of the initial peak reading of various flashlights is also very fast but. That too is a problem because lights of different power levels don't drop off from peak at the same rate.

So I believe the so called calibration done to my turn on readings (of my lights) to a completely different system and not actually using my Fenix T1 and not knowing how quick the warm up is for the 2 lights renders any alleged cross calibration and correlation to my work pretty much meaningless.

Light box readings do not smear the light uniformly as does a real sphere. Lights with different beam patterns are not necessarily going to give the same level of integration. The Styrofoam spheres are only $40.00 I would recommend dumping any light "boxes" and buying the sphere. Although not perfect it is a quantum level higher in providing "integration", then a painted box. 

Next up is the problem I have run into that wbp and Silverfox have already discovered. All these danged meters in the $200 or less range are not calibrated to anything and are not uniform for the same lights. 

Light meters that are supposed to have "photopic curve" response of the human eye are the only ones that should be used for any attempt to convert a reading of lux taken from a sphere into lumens. Without the photopic curve filter installed than the readings do not follow the human eye response and cannot ever even come close to being equated to Lumens which is based on human eye response to brightness. 

I have recently bought 2 meters from AEMC, they were both supposed to have photopic response curve and also cosine correction. They were the CA813 and CA811. The only difference in the meters was the CA 813 had 1 extra higher range scale on it and also able to capture the "peak" readings. That's it. They were supposed to have the same sensor and the same photopic curve response. 

The 2 meters could not even read daylight side by side the same. I ran a series of testing on them that took actually several hours. The bottom line was that the CA811 model (which cost less) did not follow photopic response at all. How do I know? Good Question.

I had many white lights of course, but I also had a pure Green LED Inova X5, a blue output Inova keychain light and the new Solarforce "UV" drop in module for the L2. The Solarforce does go into the UV band and light up phosphors and items with UV dye in them but its primary wavelength peak is 404nM as measured with a very expensive spectral radiometer at work by a PhD level Optical Engineer who was very interested in the module himself.

I put these 3 different color LEDs up to the 2 meters and got extremely different readings for the 2 meters that were supposed to have the same sensor.

ON the CA811 I found that the UV light read 120 footcandles(fc), the blue light 20 fc and the green 60 fc. ON the CA813, the UV light read only 6.4 fc, the blue light read about 3 fc, and the green LED light read 80 fc. There is no way in hoboken that a near UV light with a peak of 404nM could be reading higher than the green LED in unit with a half way decent photopic filter in it. Its almost completely out of the spectrum range. I read all of these lights in the integration sphere are work just to get a handle on the total brightness in lumens to make sure there was not something strange going on. The green led read 14 lumens, the blue LED read 0.114 lumens and the Purple one (which is not a low power (watts) type light) read 0.46 lumens). So that told me that just holding it up to the sensors of these two different light meters and getting such contradictory readings that the CA811 (that read 120 fc for UV and only 60 for green) was in gross error and could not be trusted. It went back to the place where I bought it and they agreed that I should get a full refund.

If you understand what I just said and how that would screw up readings then you would realize you can't take just any lightmeter that costs in the less than $200 range, throw it into an opening of a light "box" and start taking readings and say you can correlate it to my readings of a light that I haven't shared with anyone. 

You may get lucky on a few lights you may be way off on others. 

First off every one who wants to do these type of at home readings should get green and blue and near UV lights or even true UV lights (the silicon dye will read UV just fine without a photopic filter) and see if they are getting high readings in the UV or near UV range. If they are then they don't have photopic filter response and using their meter for lux or footcandles to try and convert to lumens inside of a box or a sphere or a ceiling bounce will still be totally meaningless.

I can say that the CA813 although not perfect is clearly showing it has some level of photopic response in that the near UV light reading is a heck of a lot lower than a known green LED of around 14 lumens total output power.

I have my own home made stryofoam (polystyrene) 16 inch internal diameter sphere and with the CA813 meter and the cross calibration to only more than 1 dozen lights that have been tested at work in the SC5500 system I can get some meaningful readings, I will be able to make this work. These are not the same models of lights some one else has, these are in fact the same lights. I have incans, warm LEDs, cool LEDs, greenish tint leds, green LEDs, blue LEDs, ad nauseum. I mention this again to point out that even with all of these reference points I don't get 100% correlation across the board with all the lights at home in the 16 inch polystyrene sphere. Why, my take on it based on literally several days of comparisons is that the photopic curve of the filter in the $175.00 meter simply isn't as good as the one in the $8,300 SC5500 meter that is custom matched to the silicon die sensor in the system at work. My meter at home I know favors green some what. I can get excellent correlation on warm whites from work to home, but not on greenish ones and not so much on the cool or bluish tint ones. I can see my correction factors going no worse than +/-5% base on all of my own cross correlation. How the heck are these guys who haven't done what I have done and don't have the ability to cross check to a real IS system going to say that their readings are believable??? How can you guys argue these points back and forth that so and so has "measured" some Fenix P3D at 220 lumens with any veracity to those readings?

Silverfox's test in his thread where he passed around a red, green, blue, white LED and white Incan showed that all of those meters people were using at home most couldn't correlate to any one elses low budget meter to within 5% at all and some were way the heck out there in left field. 

If you really want the truth on a P3D send me one and pay me the price of return shipping and one low budget lunch for my aggrevation to test it and I will test it and send it back. Then you can all pass it around. But what you should do is of course pass around the blue, red, green and also a UV or near UV module that drops into an L2 as well and have a good reference. That will cost you. Any one who's meter reads that UV higher than green should throw their meter in the garbage. 

If you want to argue the points of what I just wrote that means you truly don't understand the first thing about measuring lumens and shouldn't be wasting anyone elses time trying to argue the points of what light is brighter then what based on mumbo jumbo, because that is what you are doing. G


----------



## MattK (May 10, 2009)

Where does one buy these styrofoam spheres? 

Do you have a thread on your homegrown IS build?


----------



## MrGman (May 10, 2009)

MattK said:


> Where does one buy these styrofoam spheres?
> 
> Do you have a thread on your homegrown IS build?


 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157617408605639/show/

This is still a work in progress, not 100% complete yet in terms of determining all the readings are accurate enough to be considered worthy to publish as MrGman's lumens readings. 

www.barnardltd.com will find you the sphere. 

thread where I have introduced it. 

http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=230967&page=2


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (May 10, 2009)

MrGman said:


> ">Take the P3D-CE for example. Advertised at 135 on turbo, it was tested by chevrofreak at >130 on startup. To calibrate his setup with an IS, he tested the T1 at ~220 on startup. This sets his rig nearly spot on with MrGman's IS, actually at 2.3% low. That puts the P3D-CE tested at ~133 OTF lumens. It also sets the Fenix P3D/PD30 spot on with advertised claims for OTF lumens.
> 
> By studying other calibrated lightbox readings from reviewers such as selfbuilt, you can correlate other lights, such as the P3D-CE to P3D-Q5, to the PD30, etc."
> 
> ...





:wow: * Outstanding post!!*


----------



## polkiuj (May 10, 2009)

Wow! All these sound like almost understandable alien gibberish to me! My understanding is still way off i guess!!

Anyway... I was just about to post before CPF shut down for maintenance... =(

I've re-tested and even went to the shop to compare a brand spanking new PD30. My results are astonishing to say the least. I also give up trying to estimate here and there. It is just too hard with too many variables around... So I'll leave the testing to the professionals with professional equipment. =)

Fenix LD10, turn on
AA NiMh turbo 2700 lux (control unit)
AW 14500 6450 lux
*One question here MrG, assuming my readings are accurate, can I conclude that my LD10 makes 2.3888∞ times the lumens based on the lux readings I got? Assume that: same light, same point of reading, same distance, etc. All same except for battery driving it.*

Eagletac P100A2
2 x AA Alk, fresh Med 2930 lux
2 x AA Alk, fresh Max 7040 lux

Eagletac T10LC2 (bad sample, thermal epoxy found on LED dome. Will probably affect output)
2 x AW 16340 Max 9150 lux
2 x AW 16340 Med 2350 lux

My readings seems to have run from the last time I tested. 

Here are the list of things that changed.
NiMH on LD10 is now freshly charged, sitting for about half to one hour. Last time not fully charged.
14500 fully charged, sitting for one whole day. Last time might not be fully charged, sitting for several days.

Also, I compared My LD10 with the shop's PD30. My LD10 is noticeably warmer and slightly greenish while the PD30 is bluish.

LD10 NiMH vs PD30 2xUltrafireRCR123. obviously the LD10 loses flat.

LD10 Ultrafire14500 vs PD30 2xUltrafireRCR123. Owner claims 14500 is fully charged. LD10 appears to be considerably brighter than before but PD30 is still noticeably brighter.

Here is the interesting part. LD10 AW14500 (from my friend, quite full but not fully charged) vs PD30 2xUltrafireRCR123. Now the LD10 is noticeably brighter than even the Ultrafire 14500. It appears to look the same as the PD30. I can't tell which is actually brighter because of the tint difference.

So... either (1)AW 14500's are really good, (2)Ultrafire 14500's are really bad or (3)The owner lied.

My "light meter" is actually a hacked Canon A530 set on spot exposure. It should be well calibrated from the factory but unfortunately I'm not. So results are not 100% accurate. Actually, not even close. LOL.

MrG, I'll send U my LD10 soon, if you want to try it. With a 14500 so you can test both, unless you have your own and would like to use that. I'll do it as soon as my other EDC (Inova T1) arrives (T10LC2 is too big. P100A2 is not mine =( ).


----------



## MrGman (May 11, 2009)

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/94232

This is the link to Silverfox's original test of various light meters to known light sources. There is a big chart with the spreadsheet of results below it. the horizontal red, green, blue, white, and yellow lines are the independent lab testing of the light sources. The individual meter results for those colors from the same meter showed most meters could not track the various colors accurately and some were way the heck off. This is why you can't just run out and buy a low budget "spot" light meter that reads lux and footcandles throw it in a box and read a light against 1 known reference and call it a "lumens" readout. Who the heck knows how good that meter is in the first place just to read lux and whether or not it will be way the heck off scale across the color spectrum.

Why??? because silicon diode sensor chips don't see the light spectrum the way the human eye does, not even close, they need filters and calibration to filter that down to the human eye response "photopic curve" (if thats what you are aiming for) and its obvious from Silverfox's great body of work that you aren't getting that in these cheap meters. So then it turns out you have to do what wbp and I are doing, run our own cross reference calibration against, not just 1 or 2 or 3 different lights but a whole slew of lights and known calibration "sources" to see if these things are any where close to the truth. Wbp had to recalibrate his AEMC CA813 himself to read lux accurately as a spot meter. I already had to send back the AEMC CA811 as stated above for not even being close enough to consider useable. I have already put in about 8 hours of work just checking the 2 meters I bought and am still not convinced that the "good" meter will be useable across the visible light spectrum that the human eye sees but will be tolerable for mostly neutral and warm lights to say A is brighter than B. Knowing the limitations of your equipment is only the beginning of wisdom in the search of truth. Not even knowing that the equipment you spent money on may have no relationship to reality and assuming its good because it says 3% accuracy on the box is the beginning of embarassment. 

Silverfox in this case did a lot of work to show that equipment people were spending good $$ on would embarass them if they believed it was accurate. The vendor's selling that [email protected] should be called on it.

If we all bought volt and ammeters that were that far out all those companies would be out of business, why can they get away with it for lightmeters? Caveat Emptor. G


----------



## polkiuj (May 11, 2009)

I just returned from the shop.

Testing shows that there is a noticeable difference between my LD10 AW 14500 and PD30 turbo. The LD10 has a noticeably brighter at the same distance. Yes, it is noticeable even with the tint difference.

Testing was done in a darkened room (not totally dark though). The shop owner was completely surprised :twothumbs by the results.

On a side note, I think my LD10 is burning up . It is showing yellowish brown on the sides of the dome where the dome meets the silver ring. It does however put out a nice warm yellowish tint around my hotspot now .

Looks like I gotta find another light for my AW 14500 now before my LD10 goes ...


----------



## DM51 (May 11, 2009)

Excellent posts, MrGman.

For those who have not yet read it, I would strongly recommend taking a look at MrGman's thread: Actual Lumens readings in 6" dia. Lab Sphere IS with SC 5500 control - PART II


----------



## Corvette6769 (May 12, 2009)

Anyone know why the Fenix P3D run-times are so much better than the PD30?

P3D low - 33% more lumens but same run time as the PD30
P3D med -25% less lumens but 38% longer run time than PD30
P3D high - 2% more lumens and 20% longer run time than PD30
P3D turbo - 2% less lumens but 20% longer run time than PD30

*P3D* 12 lumens (65hrs) -> 53 lumens (13hrs) -> 120 lumens (4.8hrs) -> SOS Turbo Mode: 215 lumens (1.8hrs) 
*PD30* 9 lumens (65hrs) -> 70 lumens (8hrs) -> 117 lumens (4hrs) -> SOS Turbo Mode: 220 lumens (1.5hrs) 

*Still open to suggestion - Are there no other quality flashlights the same size as, or smaller than, the Fenix PD30, that put out 220 or more lumens?*


----------



## MattK (May 12, 2009)

The Olight I20 is basically the same size and is rated at 235 lumens using a Cree R2 LED.


----------



## Corvette6769 (May 13, 2009)

MattK said:


> The Olight I20 is basically the same size and is rated at 235 lumens using a Cree R2 LED.


 
Thank you for the suggestion, I am considering the Olight I20. I like the customizable output levels.


----------



## zs&tas (May 15, 2009)

Corvette6769 said:


> Anyone know why the Fenix P3D run-times are so much better than the PD30?
> 
> P3D low - 33% more lumens but same run time as the PD30
> P3D med -25% less lumens but 38% longer run time than PD30
> ...


 
I am new to all this and have been looking towards the wolf eyes champion - looks mighty impressive ~ 260 lumens advertised 2x cr123 and 5" long
worth a look


----------



## Corvette6769 (May 16, 2009)

zs&tas said:


> I am new to all this and have been looking towards the wolf eyes champion - looks mighty impressive ~ 260 lumens advertised 2x cr123 and 5" long
> worth a look


 
I will look into the Wolf-Eyes Champion, however I must admit that I am somewhat skeptical of a manufacturer that claims 280 lumens with a Cree Q5.


----------



## Corvette6769 (May 17, 2009)

Just thought I should mention what prompted me to even consider replacing my P3D is that for some reason it is stuck on turbo mode and I can not get it to go back to the lower levels (I have tried different batteries from 3.0v primaries to 3.7v rechargeable CR123, checked to make sure no metal shavings are making contact between the turbo contact and head threads, etc.). I have no idea what caused this, never dropped or abused in any way, worked fine in all lower modes last time used, just one day out of the blue, clicked it on and it was stuck in turbo mode (even though head was not tightened to turbo). After a diligent Internet search and searching this forum, it would appear that I am the only one this has happened to. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.


----------



## Marduke (May 17, 2009)

They have a warranty for a reason...


----------



## Corvette6769 (May 19, 2009)

Marduke said:


> They have a warranty for a reason...


 
I understand, but the prospect of being without my main EDC for any length of time does not appeal to me, if the problem is something I can fix myself, or until after I replace it with something like a PD30.


----------



## jhc37013 (May 19, 2009)

Fenix PD30 = 4.65" x .85" 49g 

Wolf Eyes Champion = 5.2" x 1" 74.7g

Olight I20 = 5" x 1" 68.5g

One I want to throw in their if it has not been already is the Eagletac P100C2

P100C2 = 4.9" x .85" body 1" head 66g

Personally for me as it appears like the OP anything larger than the PD30 is to large for EDC. Around 4.5" and diameter no larger that .8-.85 is about max size. Although I will end up getting a Olight I20 its to big for me to EDC. I have a P100C2 on the way and am willing to give it a go as a EDC if i can find a proper belt holster. I prefer the holster like the old Fenix which I use with my PD30. I ordered the Eagletac stock holster made for this light but I have no idea what it looks like.


----------



## Corvette6769 (May 20, 2009)

jhc37013 said:


> .....Personally for me as it appears like the OP anything larger than the PD30 is to large for EDC. Around 4.5" and diameter no larger that .8-.85 is about max size.....


 
I could not have said it better myself and given the replies to this post, it would appear while there are some that are perhaps equal to the PD30, but none of comparable size (or smaller) that are better performing. Perhaps there won't be until Fenix starts installing the new Cree XLamp XP-G LED in the PD30.


----------



## MattK (May 20, 2009)

Hmm, to me 4.65-5.2" X .85-1" is "of comparable size" and all are small enough for EDC.

The LumaPower Encore should probably be considered as well. Not quite as bright but smaller, longer runtime and incredible regulation: 4.76" X .826", 180L (I need to double check the dimensions...)


----------



## Corvette6769 (May 21, 2009)

MattK said:


> Hmm, to me 4.65-5.2" X .85-1" is "of comparable size" and all are small enough for EDC.
> 
> The LumaPower Encore should probably be considered as well. Not quite as bright but smaller, longer runtime and incredible regulation: 4.76" X .826", 180L (I need to double check the dimensions...)


Thank you for your input. I did the math and as you suspected, the LumaPower Encore it is in fact a little smaller than you posted:

Since 
115 Millimeters = 4.52755906 Inches
19 Millimeters = 0.74803149606 Inches
21 Millimeters = 0.82677165354 Inches
20 Millimeters = 0.7874015748 Inches
41 Grams = 1.44623244 Ounces

so the LumaPower Encore at 115mm, Tail dia.: 19mm, Engine dia.: 21mm, Head dia.: 20mm Weight: 41g (without batteries) 
=
4.53", Tail dia.: .74", Engine dia.: .83", Head dia.: .79" Weight: 1.45 oz (without batteries) 

The 220-lumen Fenix PD30 is ever slightly larger the LumaPower Encore at 118mm x 21.5mm (4.65" x .85")

My 215-lumen Fenix P3D at 114mm x 21mm (4.49" x .83") is the same size as the 180-lumen LumaPower Encore.

However, LumaPower Encore is much larger than my 180-lumen Fenix P2D at 80mm x 21mm (3.14" x .83") and Fenix P1D at 71mm x 21mm (2.80" x .83").


----------



## MattK (May 21, 2009)

Corvette6769 said:


> Thank you for your input. I did the math and as you suspected, the LumaPower Encore it is in fact a little smaller than you posted:
> 
> so the LumaPower Encore at 115mm, Tail dia.: 19mm, Engine dia.: 21mm, Head dia.: 20mm Weight: 41g (without batteries)
> =
> ...



Cool, I thought those dimensions seemed slightly off. Of course the Encore takes 18650's too so it's 'doing more' in less space. All great lights - tis a good time to be a flashaholic. 

The P2D and P1D are single cell lights and the P1D is a twisty so I don't see the point of comparison there - then we'd look at them vs Olight T10, I15, LumaPower Incendio, etc. Apples/Oranges IMO.


----------



## Corvette6769 (May 24, 2009)

The reason I listed the P2D and P1D was exactly because they are much smaller single cell lights that put out the same 180 lumens as the LumaPower Encore (apples/apples regarding lumens) and that if one was to settle for just 180 lumens, much smaller alternatives exist.


----------



## brightnorm (May 27, 2009)

"Anything better than the Fenix PD30?"

This prior thread dealt with the same question:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/211479


Can any light equal the Fenix PD3/Q5 /(PD30) in its combination of brightness, runtime, beam configuration, ease and speed of brightness selection, size and weight?

For me, it is the combination of these characteristics that determine a primary EDC light's value. I have EDC'd many lights over the years, and as a primary EDC the PD3/Q5 has earned its place as my most useful and functional commercial light, second only to my SPY005 (custom). My considerations are strictly practical and functional, irrespective of cost and aesthetics. 

I know of no other light that provides this superior combination of features, and I have owned and used many lights.

(The PD30's beam is a little tighter than the P3D's and the levels are slightly different, along with a redesigned tailcap and non-roll bezel. For general use I prefer the P3D).

Brightnorm


----------



## fisk-king (May 27, 2009)

before lunch we had to take some air gap readings on the generator/ main exciter on one of our units. my 2 co-workers had their streamlight polymers LED on trying to get a reading w/ some feeler gauges. thats when I stepped in & brought out the PD30. Both stared at it and quitely holstered their lights. Priceless.:thumbsup:

Edit: my only problem is not w/ the light but w/ the holster. the head gets snagged w/n the holster. Or maybe I am putting it in backwards


----------



## thedeske (May 27, 2009)

My fairly new PD30 is a big hit around the shop. It's been up a 7 step rolling ladder with me to repair fixtures (both tail standing in a tray and in the mouth) pointing on the ceiling for things that need repair, chasing after materials in a dark back room.
The size makes it easy to pocket. It's supposed to live in one of my tool drawers, but I've yet to stop wearing it.
My back tenants and next door mechanic had the same reaction - 'Wow, what is that?' 'Nice Beam'
Everybody wants to check it out.

The original intent was to use it with the diffuser for cabinet installs when I need light for drilling undersides, or wiring in tight spaces, but it's getting a workout everywhere. I had no idea I'd use it this much.

Thanks to the fine CPF members, I discovered the 9 dollar local batteries for 1.45 online (Panas) Sweet

Like everything else, there will always be something as good or better for a specific purpose.


----------



## brightnorm (May 27, 2009)

fisk-king said:


> ...my only problem is not w/ the light but w/ the holster. the head gets snagged w/n the holster. Or maybe I am putting it in backwards


That's one reason why I prefer the plain old P3D: easy slide in & out.

Brightnorm


----------



## fisk-king (May 28, 2009)

well it seems that having this light does have its drawbacks everyone now relies on me for light:shakehead


----------



## MrGman (May 28, 2009)

fisk-king said:


> well it seems that having this light does have its drawbacks everyone now relies on me for light:shakehead


 
So either buy some more and then sell them to your can't live without it coworkers or give them your website link and tell them to crack open their wallets. 

Or charge them a battery drainage fee which typically includes them buying the pizza or burgers for lunch. 

I would just send them to Lighthound dot com myself, they have given me excellent service in the past 3 years.


----------



## jhc37013 (May 28, 2009)

brightnorm said:


> That's one reason why I prefer the plain old P3D: easy slide in & out.
> 
> Brightnorm



I agree totally but the PD30 fits just fine in the old holster, I ordered a few extra P3D holsters and I'm good to go. I wish Fenix would go back to the old holster, the new one is useless if you use a lanyard.


----------



## dcycleman (May 28, 2009)

yeah I just ordered a P3D because I like the smooth body better too, also the OD color. and as stated the PD30's holster is absolute crap.


----------



## dcycleman (May 28, 2009)

does the P3D/PD30 fit in the fenix headband?? or is it AA only??


----------



## jhc37013 (May 28, 2009)

dcycleman said:


> yeah I just ordered a P3D because I like the smooth body better too, also the OD color. and as stated the PD30's holster is absolute crap.




You can get the PD30 with the OD finish now. Its alot better than the older OD finish. I believe batteryjunction is the only one that has them.


----------



## dcycleman (May 28, 2009)

Dammit, now you tell me


----------



## jhc37013 (May 28, 2009)

dcycleman said:


> Dammit, now you tell me




Its just gives you another excuse to get another :twothumbs

I just recently found them myself. Here is the tread that started it all. Thanks to it I also had to order a few others.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/230594


----------



## dcycleman (May 28, 2009)

hey thanks! just canceled the order and placed a new one through battery junction. got the new olive PD30 comin instead!


----------



## jhc37013 (May 28, 2009)

dcycleman said:


> hey thanks! just canceled the order and placed a new one through battery junction. got the new olive PD30 comin instead!




Glad you was able to do that, you won't regret it. The new OD finish is nice.


----------



## Corvette6769 (Jul 7, 2009)

jhc37013 I agree with your signature "_Favorite lights - PD30(OD finish), LD01, Eagletac T100C2..._"

I every day carry both my Fenix PD30 and Fenix LD01 (mainly to clip on my cap for a headlamp), and always grab one of my EagleTac T100C2 first for outdoor use.

I sure am looking forward to see what EagleTac and Fenix come out with using the new 345-lumen Cree XLamp XP-G LED. 

Hopefully something the same size or smaller (118mm x 21.5mm / 4.65" x .85") with all the same features as the Fenix PD30.


----------



## Corvette6769 (Jan 4, 2010)

Well I finally found a flashlight that is better than the Fenix PD30. 

It's the new 265-lumen Fenix PD30 XP-G R4, so I ordered one to be my new EDC (replacing my 7-month old PD30-Q5). 

Since it has the clip, it may also replace my 2nd EDC Fenix LD01 (that I clip on my hat as a headlight). 

As always, I am always looking for a better alternative (same or superior features, power, and quality). 

Is there a quality flashlight the same size (118mm x 21.5mm / 4.65" x .85") or smaller than the PD30 XP-G R4 that puts out 265 or more lumens?

One that can use a 18650 battery would be perfect.


----------



## MattK (Jan 4, 2010)

If you can do a wider diameter the D-Mini VX ULTRA is considerably brighter and 1 x 18650 is the preferred power source.


----------



## jhc37013 (Jan 4, 2010)

Corvette6769 said:


> Well I finally found a flashlight that is better than the Fenix PD30.
> 
> It's the new 265-lumen Fenix PD30 XP-G R4, so I ordered one to be my new EDC (replacing my 7-month old PD30-Q5).
> 
> Since it has the clip, it may also replace my 2nd EDC Fenix LD01 (that I clip on my hat as a headlight).




I love the new design body and reflector, I favor the R2 more than the R4 though.

About the only thing I have found in the same size class and body style that I like a lot is the Quarks and the MG Mini II R2 although the Mini is suppose to be only 18650 I have used 123's with no problems but I have not ran it on max for more than 10mins either.


----------



## se4g4e (Jan 4, 2010)

The Quark 123^2 with add-on 18650 body is almost exactly the same size as the PD30. Don't know if it would match or exceed the lumen output, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Cost of the Quark with extra body is a bit higher.


----------



## Corvette6769 (Jan 5, 2010)

MattK said:


> If you can do a wider diameter the D-Mini VX ULTRA is considerably brighter and 1 x 18650 is the preferred power source.


 
Great , now I have to go and learn about the SST-50 LED (until now I thought it was all about P7 and MC-E...but seems there is a new player in the game).

The bezel on the 550 Lumen LumaPower D-Mini VX ULTRA is about 10% larger than larger than my 700-lumen MG PLI Cree MC-E.

What is the length of the D-Mini VX ULTRA with the 18650 battery tube installed?


----------



## Corvette6769 (Jan 5, 2010)

jhc37013 said:


> I love the new design body and reflector, I favor the R2 more than the R4 though.
> 
> About the only thing I have found in the same size class and body style that I like a lot is the Quarks and the MG Mini II R2 although the Mini is suppose to be only 18650 I have used 123's with no problems but I have not ran it on max for more than 10mins either.


 
Why would anyone run 123's if he can use 18650?


----------



## jhc37013 (Jan 5, 2010)

Corvette6769 said:


> Why would anyone run 123's if he can use 18650?



I use them as backup for one thing or maybe he don't want to use 18650, its just an option.


----------



## MattK (Jan 5, 2010)

Corvette6769 said:


> What is the length of the D-Mini VX ULTRA with the 18650 battery tube installed?



I don't have one handy but they're 3.7" with the regular tube so figure ~5.25" with the 18650 tube installed. 



Corvette6769 said:


> Why would anyone run 123's if he can use 18650?


It's all about HOW you use your light. For tactical usage, emergency or backup usage primary batties make a lot more sense.


----------



## Corvette6769 (Jan 5, 2010)

MattK said:


> I don't have one handy but they're 3.7" with the regular tube so figure ~5.25" with the 18650 tube installed.
> 
> 
> It's all about HOW you use your light. For tactical usage, emergency or backup usage primary batties make a lot more sense.


 
Wow, that is just the opposite of what I would expect, especially with all the 18650 hype here on the forum. While I have never run any of my 123 or 18650 Li-ion cells down to the point they needed charged, my discharge tests on my Maha MH-C777PLUS-II Universal LCD Charger - Analyzer - Conditioner have shown that my 18650 cells have 5 times the capacity of my CR123A batteries. 

Why are primary batteries preferred over the rechargeable 18650 cell for tactical, emergency, and backup usage?


----------



## recDNA (Jan 5, 2010)

Is the Fenix XP-G less beam green than the Quark? I'd love to try an XP-G that produced white light.


----------



## jhc37013 (Jan 5, 2010)

Mine is less green than the Quark R5 but you never can tell with the lottery.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Jan 5, 2010)

Corvette6769 said:


> Wow, that is just the opposite of what I would expect, especially with all the 18650 hype here on the forum. While I have never run any of my 123 or 18650 Li-ion cells down to the point they needed charged, my discharge tests on my Maha MH-C777PLUS-II Universal LCD Charger - Analyzer - Conditioner have shown that my 18650 cells have 5 times the capacity of my CR123A batteries.
> 
> *Why are primary batteries preferred over the rechargeable 18650 cell for tactical, emergency, and backup usage?*


 
Because they never need to be charged or recharged in the first place.
They are always ready. There is no guessing and no extra gear needed (a recharger, a cable and an outlet). Not everybody is a flashaholic with tons of geeky gear at home. 18650's while great for those with some li-ion experience, are not available at brick and mortar stores and virtually no LEO/SAR agencies or the Military issue them to its operatives. As simple as that. There is a whole different world outside Flashaholism and CPF...


----------



## pm91 (Jan 5, 2010)

If I understand this correctly, one shouldn't use primary batteries in the D-Mini VX ULTRA? It only uses rechargeables? Let me know what I am missing. Thanks, paul


----------



## skyfire (Jan 6, 2010)

i cant say much about the brightness, beam tint, and output of the pd30, since my pd30 r4 was defective. but i like my quark 123x2 tacical r5 more. i feel the clip on the quark is better, when cliped to my front pocket its just much more secure. and it slides in easier. 
the switch feels much better. its lighter and smaller than the pd30. and it comes with a much better holster.the knurling is also better, provides better grip. the pd30 r4 knurling feels kind of smooth.

so far i liked the quark 123x2 r5 more, but i might change my mind if i get my pd30 r4 back and working properly in about a month or 2.:tired:


----------



## brightnorm (Jan 31, 2010)

Painful Chafe said:


> There really isn't much benefit going with the PD30 if you have a P3D. They rate it at 5 lumens more on Turbo. You will never see that even if it is truly there. I actually think the P3D has a better beam profile. No rings with a smoother spot spill transition. Maybe they were trying to get more throw out of the PD30. I researched lights this size for a bit, but I didn't see anything that bettered the P3D. If you want something better, you will probably have to get something bigger that can handle the heat.....


 
I have researched and owned a variety of 2xcr123 lights (OLight, Jetbeam, etc) and have come to the same conclusion. After months (actually a couple of years) of EDC-ing many different lights The P3D and PD30 are now my only belt-carry EDCs. By EDC I mean always carry. 

Although there are other lights that "beat" them in one or more characteristics it it is in their total combination of features that I find them unique. That includes size (length and maximum diameter; even fractions of an inch can make a difference over time), shape, weight, maximum output, brightness selection, runtime, beam configuration, durability and reliability.

In comparing the two I generally prefer the P3D because of its shorter length, more secure tail-standing, more useful brightness "stepping" ("medium" is bright but slightly lower than the PD30's, yielding more runtime and a more distinct difference between medium and bright), and a wider beam which is more appropriate for "general" use than the PD30's tighter beam.

OTOH, that tighter beam has more throw while still being useful for general application.

What is remarkable is how well this "ancient" (by CPF standards) design has not merely endured, but triumphed.

Although the P3D and PD30 are now my only true belt-carried EDCs, I have many other lights of all sizes and brightness which I may temporarily belt-carry for specific purposes, including the JS-modified 500 lumen regulated Tigerlight, and even the 3500 lumen HID Microfire Warrior which I belt-carried in a modified Boxer holster.

BTW, it's useful to check lumens (OTF if possible) and especially beam configuration before comparing lights for brightness.

Happy lumens,
Brightnorm


----------



## jhc37013 (Jan 31, 2010)

If you like brighter spill and a low-low you should check out the PD30 R4.


----------



## brightnorm (Jan 31, 2010)

They are unavailable from every source I have checked. Do you have a source?

BN


----------



## jhc37013 (Jan 31, 2010)

Looks like they may have one here.

http://www.cfrlights.com/servlet/the-763/Fenix-PD30-pls--R4-Edition/Detail


----------



## OutTheFront (Jan 31, 2010)

Still enjoy my PD30 XR-E Q5. No regrets with that emitter.


----------



## skyfire (Feb 1, 2010)

i dont know about brighter, but the quark 123-2 r5 definitely has a wider spill, and its very useful.
i still prefer the quark 123-2 tactical. more compact, lighter, better knurling, better clip, better switch, much better holster. better options with availability of lego parts. better low, and low low mode. only thing i prefer from the pd30 is the looks of the light. the quark is far from stunning looking, but it sure can perform.

and it can run on max output for much longer periods of time without getting hot. mine has never been more than warm, and ive run it on max for up to 20 minutes at a time. my pd30 gets hot after a few minutes on max.


----------



## SuperTrouper (Feb 1, 2010)

skyfire said:


> ...mine has never been more than warm, and ive run it on max for up to 20 minutes at a time. my pd30 gets hot after a few minutes on max.



As a general rule it's not always a good thing, as when a light gets hot when the emitter is running at full power, it means the heat is being conducted away from the LED and into the body of the light and your hand. If it doesn't get hot all that heat could be building up inside the LED cooking it.

I've no technical knowledge of how hard the LED in the quark is being driven on the highest setting, or if it could endanger the emitter. Maybe just a slight warming is conducting enough heat away but I just wanted to address this comment that the light not getting hot is not necessarily such a positive thing.


----------



## VideoFame (Feb 1, 2010)

I've had the PD30+ [Cree XP-G LED(R4)] for about a month now and totally love it. I wear it and my Olight M30 7 days a week on my belt. The PD30 goes on my belt when I get dressed in the morning and my Olight gets added to my belt when I go for my 7 mile walk every night.

I use my M30 to look at fish life under water at this one bridge I cross every night. It works perfect. I use the PD30 to navigate parts of the sidewalk and roadway that have tree roots growing under them that my for easy tripping unless you have a nice little flashlight. I also use the M30 on Turbo to nail cars coming towards me on little 20mph roads with their brights on!

I hope to get a S1200 from 4sevens to keep inconsiderate drivers in line when that flashlight gets released ;-)


----------



## skyfire (Feb 1, 2010)

SuperTrouper said:


> As a general rule it's not always a good thing, as when a light gets hot when the emitter is running at full power, it means the heat is being conducted away from the LED and into the body of the light and your hand. If it doesn't get hot all that heat could be building up inside the LED cooking it.
> 
> I've no technical knowledge of how hard the LED in the quark is being driven on the highest setting, or if it could endanger the emitter. Maybe just a slight warming is conducting enough heat away but I just wanted to address this comment that the light not getting hot is not necessarily such a positive thing.


 
very true, i didnt think about that. 

i use the light 5 times a week, but no more than 2 months so far. but it seems to be as good as the first day. ive also ask 4sevens if it was safe to use it on max for extended periods of time, and they told me "its good up to 1.8 hours" or something like that. 
and theres always the 10 year warranty, or easily swapping in a new head. (maybe even with a newer type emitter in the future) :twothumbs

i do like the pd30, just prefer the quark alittle more. the tint is slighty green though, but not so much that its irratating. i wouldnt even notice if i didnt have other lights to compare to.

all in all, if you love the pd30, i think you owe it to yourself to try out the quark123-2. plus, the tactical version gives you a different UI, which i prefer as well. and forward clicky. but no tailstand.


----------



## brightnorm (Feb 8, 2010)

jhc37013 said:


> Looks like they may have one here.
> 
> http://www.cfrlights.com/servlet/the-763/Fenix-PD30-pls--R4-Edition/Detail


 
They only have the R2

BN


----------



## brightnorm (Feb 8, 2010)

Originally Posted by *Corvette6769* 

 
_Wow, that is just the opposite of what I would expect, especially with all the 18650 hype here on the forum. While I have never run any of my 123 or 18650 Li-ion cells down to the point they needed charged, my discharge tests on my Maha MH-C777PLUS-II Universal LCD Charger - Analyzer - Conditioner have shown that my 18650 cells have 5 times the capacity of my CR123A batteries. _

_*Why are primary batteries preferred over the rechargeable 18650 cell for tactical, emergency, and backup usage?*_




Outdoors Fanatic said:


> Because they never need to be charged or recharged in the first place.
> They are always ready. There is no guessing and no extra gear needed (a recharger, a cable and an outlet). Not everybody is a flashaholic with tons of geeky gear at home. 18650's while great for those with some li-ion experience, are not available at brick and mortar stores and virtually no LEO/SAR agencies or the Military issue them to its operatives. As simple as that. There is a whole different world outside Flashaholism and CPF...


 
In addition, the no-warning "sudden death" of LiONs (especially protected cells) make them, IMO, inappropriate and potentially dangerous in critical applications.

Brightnorm


----------



## jhc37013 (Feb 10, 2010)

brightnorm said:


> They only have the R2
> 
> BN



Back when I posted they still had it you must have just missed out.


----------



## recDNA (Feb 10, 2010)

VideoFame said:


> I've had the PD30+ [Cree XP-G LED(R4)] for about a month now and totally love it. I wear it and my Olight M30 7 days a week on my belt. The PD30 goes on my belt when I get dressed in the morning and my Olight gets added to my belt when I go for my 7 mile walk every night.
> 
> I use my M30 to look at fish life under water at this one bridge I cross every night. It works perfect. I use the PD30 to navigate parts of the sidewalk and roadway that have tree roots growing under them that my for easy tripping unless you have a nice little flashlight. I also use the M30 on Turbo to nail cars coming towards me on little 20mph roads with their brights on!
> 
> I hope to get a S1200 from 4sevens to keep inconsiderate drivers in line when that flashlight gets released ;-)


 

What color is the tint in the PD30 XP-G? Was it a limited run or will it be available again?


----------



## Corvette6769 (Mar 10, 2010)

recDNA said:


> What color is the tint in the PD30 XP-G? Was it a limited run or will it be available again?


 
Mine had a green tint. Fenix had a short run of them the first of the year. See my post http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...4&postcount=82

The First PD30-R4 that I received was defective, second one not impressive either. With that said, other reviews and YouTube videos showed the R4 to be far superior to both the PD30 R2 and Q5, both in terms of output and beam quality, so mine must have been on the short end of the LED lottery. 

My EDC is my Fenix PD30 Premium Q5. Hopefully Fenix will revise the PD30 and at least give us a good XP-G R5 version soon. 

The Cree XP-G *S2 bin* (493-520 lumens @ 1.5A) would be even a further improvement over the XPG R5 bin (463-493 lumens @ 1.5A).


----------



## Corvette6769 (Mar 12, 2011)

*This is Yahoo's cache of **https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/230315&page=4** as it appeared onon 2/21/2011 (starting with first mising post after 03-10-2010 07:27 PM CST)*

*Re: Anything better than the Fenix PD30 ?*Written by *Corvette6769* on 12-16-2010 03:44 AM GMTAs I posted 3 days ago, Fenix is finally giving us what I asked for above, more than 9 months ago.....well sort of.... The new PD31 is a slightly larger (2mm longer and 2.5 mm wider than the PD30) single 18650 version, but unfortunately, the XP-G R5 LED is only driven at 1.2A on turbo. Since Cree XP-G S3 bin (520-547 lumens @ 1.5A) is now available, I sure wish Fenix would have given us that at 1.5A in the Fenix PD31. 

*Re: Anything better than the Fenix PD30 ?*Written by *jirik_cz* on 12-16-2010 05:53 AM GMT


Corvette6769 said:


> the XP-G R5 LED is only driven at 1.2A on turbo.


Where did you get this information? Where did you get this information?


Corvette6769 said:


> Since Cree XP-G S3 bin (520-547 lumens @ 1.5A) is now available, I sure wish Fenix would have given us that at 1.5A in the Fenix PD31.


XP-G S3 is available only in very limited quantities. XP-G S3 is available only in very limited quantities. 

*Re: Anything better than the Fenix PD30 ?*Written by *Corvette6769* on 12-16-2010 06:07 AM GMT


jirik_cz said:


> Where did you get this information?


Directly from Fenix on December 13, 2010: "low (10mA), medium (200mA), high (400mA) and SOS (400mA), Turbo (1,200mA) and Strobe (1,200mA)." Directly from Fenix on December 13, 2010: "low (10mA), medium (200mA), high (400mA) and SOS (400mA), Turbo (1,200mA) and Strobe (1,200mA)."I was anticipating something more like Low (24mA), Medium (400mA), High and SOS (1,000mA), Turbo and Strobe (1,500mA). But then again with the out-the-front rating of only 304 Lumens, I should have known, but was still willing to blame the new ANSI/NEMA rating standard for the low performance.

*Re: Anything better than the Fenix PD30 ?*Written by *MichaelW* on 12-16-2010 08:43 AM GMT


Corvette6769 said:


> The new PD31 is a slightly larger (2mm longer and 2.5 mm wider than the PD30) single 18650 version, but unfortunately, the XP-G R5 LED is only driven at 1.2A on turbo. Since Cree XP-G S3 bin (520-547 lumens @ 1.5A) is now available, I sure wish Fenix would have given us that at 1.5A in the Fenix PD31.


Didn't 4sevens only get 1,000 of the S2 emitters, and 100 of the S3? Didn't 4sevens only get 1,000 of the S2 emitters, and 100 of the S3?Fenix can not sell you a PD31 with an S2/S3 if they can not get any.Secondly, since Fenix only has four output levels, they won't be using an 'non-sustainable' Turbo modes.Take it or leave it.I want a Fenix PD40: xm-l, 3xcr123, 500,250,83,21,4 lumens output. That would be roughly 1.8 amp drive on Turbo, and 6 watt draw from the batteries.Hopefully Fenix will get that out by spring... 

*Re: Anything better than the Fenix PD30 ?*Written by *phantom23* on 12-16-2010 09:24 AM GMT


Corvette6769 said:


> Since Cree XP-G S3 bin (520-547 lumens @ 1.5A) is now available,


Niether S2 nor S3 are available. Niether S2 nor S3 are available. 

*Re: Anything better than the Fenix PD30 ?*Written by *Corvette6769* on 12-16-2010 03:25 PM GMT


MichaelW said:


> I want a Fenix PD40: xm-l, 3xcr123, 500,250,83,21,4 lumens output. That would be roughly 1.8 amp drive on Turbo, and 6 watt draw from the batteries.Hopefully Fenix will get that out by spring...


I already have a couple 5-mode Cree XM-L T6 bin (910-975 Lumens @ 3.0A) in transit (One P60 drop-in and one complete flashlight) that I expect will outperform the PD40. I already have a couple 5-mode Cree XM-L T6 bin (910-975 Lumens @ 3.0A) in transit (One P60 drop-in and one complete flashlight) that I expect will outperform the PD40. 

*Re: Anything better than the Fenix PD30 ?*Written by *Corvette6769* on 12-16-2010 03:25 PM GMT


phantom23 said:


> Niether S2 nor S3 are available.


I understand that Cutter Electronics is selling the emitters and BatteryJunction and others are selling the OLIGHT XP-G S2 flashlights, 4Sevens has the Quark XP-G S2 flashlights. I understand that Cutter Electronics is selling the emitters and BatteryJunction and others are selling the OLIGHT XP-G S2 flashlights, 4Sevens has the Quark XP-G S2 flashlights. 

*Re: Anything better than the Fenix PD30 ?*Written by *MichaelW* on 12-16-2010 04:34 PM GMT


Corvette6769 said:


> I already have a couple 5-mode Cree XM-L T6 bin (910-975 Lumens @ 3.0A) in transit (One P60 drop-in and one complete flashlight) that I expect will outperform the PD40.


Good for your drop in & flashlight. Can you even hold them without welder's gloves when operating on maximum? How heavy are they? How much cooling surface area do they have? Good for your drop in & flashlight. Can you even hold them without welder's gloves when operating on maximum? How heavy are they? How much cooling surface area do they have?My theoretical PD40 [really just a PD30 with an extra cell-it has a buck circuit] should be roughly 4oz [with cells]-6" long and you would need to dissipate roughly 4 watts on turbo [this is the 'unsustainable' drive level; you need to hold it with bare skin-blood cooled, or moving air from cycling. This PD31 needs to dissipate roughly 3 watts on turbo-that is on the limit], and only 2 on high. 

*Re: Anything better than the Fenix PD30 ?*Written by *phantom23* on 12-16-2010 04:57 PM GMT


Corvette6769 said:


> I understand that Cutter Electronics is selling the emitters and BatteryJunction and others are selling the OLIGHT XP-G S2 flashlights, 4Sevens has the Quark XP-G S2 flashlights.


Cutter doesn't have XP-G S2, 4sevens got very limited number (1000). That's all. Cutter doesn't have XP-G S2, 4sevens got very limited number (1000). That's all. 

*Re: Anything better than the Fenix PD30 ?*Written by *Corvette6769* on 12-16-2010 05:46 PM GMT


MichaelW said:


> Good for your drop in & flashlight. Can you even hold them without welder's gloves when operating on maximum? How heavy are they? How much cooling surface area do they have?My theoretical PD40 [really just a PD30 with an extra cell-it has a buck circuit] should be roughly 4oz [with cells]-6" long and you would need to dissipate roughly 4 watts on turbo [this is the 'unsustainable' drive level; you need to hold it with bare skin-blood cooled, or moving air from cycling. This PD31 needs to dissipate roughly 3 watts on turbo-that is on the limit], and only 2 on high.


To answer your questions; To answer your questions;Don't know yet because as I wrote above, they are still in transit. I assume they will be easy to hold without welder's gloves since the XM-L T6 will run cooler than the MC-E they are replacing that runs at 2.8A.Likewise until they arrive I can not be sure, but the drop-in is advertised to weigh but I assume there is very little difference between the weight of one P60 drop-in and another. I would expect the flashlight will weigh around 4 ounces as my other single-cell 18650 lights do.Not sure how much cooling surface, but again assume it is at least as much as my MC-E lights.


----------



## Klingsteve (Mar 12, 2011)

I'm new to CPF and I was searching for suggestions on a new light, I too decided on a Fenix. However, I went for the PD31. Although it was a limited run, there are still some to be had out there. I can't wait till it arrives. Thanks for all the info in this thread - it really helped me to make my decision.

-- Steve.


----------

