# Niwalker MiniMax Nova MM15 (2xMT-G2, 4x18650) SHIPPING Review: RUNTIME, BEAMSHOTS+



## selfbuilt (May 19, 2014)

*Warning: pic heavy, as usual. *

_*Reviewer's note:* This is the final shipping version of the MiniMax Nova MM15 by Niwalker. This review is meant to replace the earlier first prototype and second prototype reviews. Please continue all discussion in this thread, thanks! _















The MM15 is meant to be a "floody" style powerhouse light, in a small handhold build (2xMT-G2 emitters, powered by 4x18650). oo:

As before, there have some noticeable build changes from the previous engineering sample of the MM15. Basic design remains largely unchanged though. I will walk you through all the changes since my second prototype review, but first the official specs.

*Manufacturer Reported Specifications:* 
(note: as always, these are simply what the manufacturer provides – scroll down to see my actual testing results).


LED: Utilizes two U.S. made top binned Cree MT-G2 P0 LED chip 
Light output / runtime: Mode 1 : 6 lumens, Mode 2: 180 lumens, Mode 3: 450 lumens / 24 hrs, Mode 4: 880 lumens / 9 hrs 25 mins, Mode 5: 1950 lumens / 5 hrs 17mins, Turbo: 5233 lumens / 2 hrs 10 mins
Max beam distance: 280 meters
Peak beam intensity: cd: 19.600
Highly efficient circuit design offers maximum output and runtime
Multi-function clicky side switch with momentary activation and on/off
Memory function to remember last output setting used (except hidden modes)
Advanced thermal protection circuit prevents overheating
Light orange peel reflector creates great throw distance and beam pattern
Aircraft grade aluminum, mil-spec hard anodized for maximum wear
Toughened ultra-clear tempered glass lens with anti-reflective coating
Large cooper heat sink pad for superior thermal conductivity
LED indicator turns red to alert user to switch lower output mode and recharge batteries in time 
Waterproof: To IPX-8 standard
Impact resistance: 1.5M
Batteries: four 18650 rechargeable batteries (not included)
Dimensions: 114mm (length) x 64mm (head diameter)
Weight: 360g (without battery)
Included accessories: Lanyard, Holster, Spare o-rings, 
MSRP: $180






Retail packaging is similar to other recent Niwalker lights. Inside the hard cardboard box, you will find the light inside a decent quality holster (with Velcroed closing flap). The carry handle is included separately, in a cardboard holder. Also included are good quality hex-head stainless steel screws for the handle, Allen (hex) key, wrist lanyard, extra o-ring, warranty card and manual.













From left to right: AW Protected 18650 2200mAh; Niwalker MiniMax Nova MM15 shipping, prototype #1; Foursevens MMU-X3; Eagletac SX25L3; Niwalker BK-FA01.

Revised from the last prototype is an improved removable handle, which now has enough space to allow you to hold the light.


























Personally, I don't really think the handle is necessary – the light is small enough to fit into your hand comfortably, and you are better off gauging the heat level by touch anyway. 

All dimensions directly measured, and given with no batteries installed (unless indicated), and without the handle:

*MiniMax Nova MM15 Shipping*: Weight: 333.7g (without handle), 355.9g (with handle), (539g with 4x18650 and handle), Length: 114.6mm, Weight (bezel): 63.7mm
*MiniMax Nova MM15 Prototype #2*: Weight (with handle): 332.7g (516g with 4x18650), Length: 115.3mm, Weight (bezel): 60.7mm
*MiniMax Nova MM15 Prototype #1*: Weight: 268.3g (452g with 4x18650), Length: 114.0mm, Weight (bezel): 58.0mm
*Eagletac SX25L3 3x18650*: Weight: 315.9g, Length: 150.2mm, Weight (bezel): 47.0mm
*[Crelant 7G10*: Weight 643.4g (827g with 4x18650), Length: 198mm, Width (bezel): 79.0mm
*Fenix TK75*: Weight: 516.0g (700g with 4x18650), Length: 184mm, Width (bezel): 87.5mm
*Nitecore TM11*: Weight: 342.6g (476g with 8xCR123A), Length 135.3mm, Width (bezel): 59.5mm 
*Niwalker BK-FA01*: Weight: 687.6g (870g with 4x18650), Length: 209mm, Width (bezel): 80.0mm, Width (tailcap): 50.3mm
*Thrunite TN35 (MT-G2)*: Weight: 571.4g (723g with 3x18650), Length: 201mm, Width (bezel): 78.9mm






































Build has been updated from the previous engineering sample, although overall size and dimensions are not very different from the second prototype. The most obvious change is in the anodizing – it is much thicker now, with a more "grippy" matte finish. It reminds me a lot of the Armytek anodizing. Note that this sort of finish with mark easily, but is much better to enhance grip. 

Design of the body cover has changed as well, with some areas of actual knurling now (though it is not very aggressive). There are a number of model labels on the body tube now, bright white against the background. As before, this body tube is only a protective cover – there is an integrated battery carrier built into the head. Threading has changed slightly from earlier prototype; there are fewer threads now. 

No lock-out is possible, due to the integrated carrier. The integrated battery carrier has been updated from the last version, with an improved design allowing easier access to the cells. Height of the built-in carrier is good, and most cells should fit (although really long or wide high-capacity cells may be a challenge to get in or out). As before, the four 18650 cells are in series, not parallel (i.e., 4s1p). See my analysis below for user interface changes. 

Another major change is in the design of the removable handle. The handle has been raised appropriately, and the screw attachment points shrunken in size and recessed into the head. This is a better setup whether you plan to use the handle or not (i.e., less conspicuous screws now, and proper finger clearance). But it does make it hard to attach or remove.

As with the last engineering sample, there is also a lanyard attachment point and a reinforced tripod attachment point in the head. The switch is appropriately located directly in front of the handle, with an all-black button cover surround (and a "N" logo with green/red LEDs underneath). Note that the surround was stainless steel on the previous engineering sample - the final shipping version seems to have reverted to the original prototype model I reviewed. :shrug: Switch traverse/feel is pretty much unchanged across the versions, and about typical for an electronic switch. For those concerned about the brightness of the indicator button, see my post #2.

Let's take a look at the business end of the light, starting with the the MM15 Prototype #1:






And then the MM15 Prototype #2:






And now the final shipping version of the MM15:














As before, the MiniMax runs off two MT-G2 emitters in relatively shallow reflector wells. The reflector wells are a "light orange peel (LOP)" finish, compared to the heavily textured first prototype. It is still very much a flood light (scroll down for beam shots). 

With the stainless steel bezel ring, the head and reflector have a quality appearance on the final shipping version. :thumbsup:

Note that as always, the MT-G2 emitter only comes in a variety of relatively neutral-warm tint bins (i.e., the coolest one available is 5000K). All the MT-G2 samples I've seen have certainly been in the typical "Neutral White" ~4000-5000K range, and this model is no exception. 

Scroll down for beamshot comparisons.

*User Interface*

The user interface has been updated slightly from the last prototype.

As before, turn the light on/off by the electronic switch. There is now a momentary mode – press and hold the switch for momentary Turbo output. Alternatively click the switch (i.e., press and release) and the light comes on in constant output.

As before, once On, press and hold the switch to cycle through all the regular modes in sequence: 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5. I would consider these as Ultra-lo > Lo > Med > Hi > Higher. Release the switch to select the desired level. You can restart the level ramp at any time, but the ramp always starts at Level 1 (i.e., ultra-lo). Note that as before, Turbo is not on the regular mode sequence (i.e., think of it as level 6).

The shipping MM15 has mode memory for the regular non-Turbo modes, and returns to last setting used from off. 

Double-click from On to access Turbo. Double-click repeatedly for the strobe modes, in the following repeating sequence: Turbo > Strobe > SOS > Beacon. Note there is no mode memory for Turbo or the strobe modes.

You can access Strobe directly from Off now, by double-clicking switch. This means that you can have the light come on in Turbo or Strobe at any time.

There is an electronic lock-out mode, accessed by a rapid triple-click of the switch from Off. The two MT-G2 emitters will flash twice to indicate the lock-out is engaged. Another triple-click re-activates. 

There is a standby indicator that flashes when the batteries are connected but the light is not on (i.e., a brief green flash of the "N" switch occurs exactly every four seconds on my sample). As before, the switch lights up in constant green when in use. The N changes to red as the cells near exhaustion – this is a warning to switch down to a lower level, as the light will shut-off automatically soon (due to an internal shut-down feature in the circuit). I provide details on this in my testing below. You can re-activate after the light shuts down, by pulling one of the cells out and re-installing.

For those concerned about the brightness of the indicator button, see my post #2.

*Video*: 

For more information on the overall build and user interface, please see my video overview:



As with all my videos, I recommend you have annotations turned on. I commonly update the commentary with additional information or clarifications before publicly releasing the video.

*PWM/Strobe*

_*Reviewer's note:* I have recently updated my oscilloscope software, so the traces below may look a little different from my earlier reviews._

As before, there is no sign of PWM that I can see, at any output level – I believe the MiniMax is current-controlled. 

Noise:





As before, there is some noise is the high kHz range on the L2 through L5 levels (i.e., not on Moonlight or Turbo). It is quite common to see high frequency noise in current-controlled lights. Consistent with my standard review policy, I report on anything I can detect on a light. Rest assured, these signals are not visible to the eye in actual use – the light is fully flicker-free in all modes. 

Strobe:





The strobe mode was a fairly typical 12Hz fast strobe (up from 10 Hz on the prototypes).

SOS:





A fairly typical SOS mode is included.

Beacon:





The new beacon mode on the shipping version is a half-second pulse of light, repeated every 2.5 secs (i.e., 4 pulses in 10 secs, as shown above).

*Standby Drain*

A standby current drain is inevitable on this light, due to the electronic switch. Despite how the carrier looks, the batteries are actually all in series, as before (i.e. 4s1p arrangement).

On the shipping sample I measured this as 460uA initially, but it rapidly drops down over 30 secs or so to settle at 370uA. This is reasonably low.

However, the standby indicator flash every three seconds causes a jump in current to 4.8mA when it is lit (on the shipping sample). If we use ~1.5mA as a rough overall average current (i.e., averaging the current over 4 secs), that would give you 2 and a half months before 3100mAh cells would be exhausted.

As before, there is no physical lock-out available (i.e., you would need to pull one of the cells). But Niwalker has added an electronic lock-out mode (triple-click the switch from off). 

I have measured the current in lock-out mode, and it is no lower than the stable standby drain (i.e., 370uA). However, the standby indicator no longer flashes, and the light cannot be activated accidentally. So, in this lock-out mode, except almost a full year before 3100mAh cells would be fully drained.

FYI, in terms of the "N" logo indicator switch, I previously observed that the indicator LED goes red once the cells drop below ~3.45V when run the L5 level, ~3.40V on the L4 level, ~3.35V on the L3 level, ~3.30V on the L2 level. This gives you a reasonable amount of advance notice that it is time to change the batteries. :wave:

*Beamshots:*

And now, what you have all been waiting for.  All lights are on their standard battery, or AW protected 18650 2200mAh for the multi-18650 lights. Lights are about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). 

Automatic white balance is used on most of my wall beamshots (to minimize tint differences), but in this case I went with a Daylight WB on my Canon for the MiniMax prototypes.

Note the second generation prototype is labelled "MiniMax #2 Proto", and the final shipping sample is labelled as "MM15 ship 2xMT-G2".





























































_Note: No matter what white balance I use, these comparisons will never be entirely accurate for tint. In real life, I find my MT-G2 lights all to be relatively neutral white, without a huge difference between them._

As before, the MM15 has an unbelievable amount of output on Turbo. Hard to directly compare, but my ceiling bounce results tell me that my final shipping sample is intermediate in output to my two previous prototypes. 

Since the beam profile really hasn't changed from the second prototype, I've stuck with the indoor comparisons from that review. For your reference, the back of the couch is about 7 feet away (~2.3m) from the opening of the light, and the far wall is about 18 feet away (~5.9m). Below I am showing a couple of exposures, to allow you to better compare hotspot and spill. And again, the camera is set to a Daylight white balance for all lights below.
















Again, these are all done with a Daylight white balance, to better show tint differences. But a single white balance will never capture the true difference between lights – in practice, the X6 is not that cool, and the MM15s are not that warm. :shrug:

Despite how it may seem, the MM15 is really a pure flood light. Scroll down for actual output and throw measures.

For outdoor shots, I'm waiting on a couple of modified MM15vn samples from Vinh Nguyen – I will be heading to take new pics as soon as they arrive. In the interim, here are the outdoor beamshots from my prototype reviews (the beam pattern is basically unchanged). As always, these are done in the style of my earlier 100-yard round-up review. Please see that thread for a discussion of the topography.










Given that this location was picked to illustrate relative throw (which the MM15 is not designed for), it doesn't really capture the overall brightness of this light very well – recommend you stick with the indoor basement shots for now. 

That said, you can get a few hints of its relative brightness if you examine the far right end of the zoomed-out shots above (i.e., the tree line in the distance on the right). Depending on your monitor calibration, you may be able to faintly make the trees there (which are more than 100 yards away). You'll note how much hard it is to see these on the comparator SX25L3 or X6. 

Again, I plan to update these beamshots soon with the final shipping version and the modified light from Vinh Nguyen – check back for updates. But for now, the stock MM15 looks very much the same as what is shown above.
_
*EDIT:* For outdoor beamshots comparing the stock MM15 to the dome-on and dedome versions of the modded MM15vn, please check out that new review._

*Testing Method:* 

All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, as described on my flashlightreviews.ca website. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan, except for any extended run Lo/Min modes (i.e. >12 hours) which are done without cooling.

I have devised a method for converting my lightbox relative output values (ROV) to estimated Lumens. See my How to convert Selfbuilt's Lightbox values to Lumens thread for more info. 

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*

My summary tables are reported in a manner consistent with the ANSI FL-1 standard for flashlight testing. Please see http://www.flashlightreviews.ca/FL1.htm for a discussion, and a description of all the terms used in these tables. Effective July 2012, I have updated all my Peak Intensity/Beam Distance measures with a NIST-certified Extech EA31 lightmeter (orange highlights).






Since my high-output lights don't fit in my lightbox, I am really relying on my ceiling bounce measures here. The second MM15 prototype was an outstanding performer, and my shipping sample is intermediate to the first and second prototypes. At ~5200-5500 lumens across the three samples, this is a clearly an outstanding output performer for the size. :bow:

Throw remains definitely pretty minimal, given the overall output of the MM15. As always, the MT-G2 produces a very smooth beam profile. 

Let's see how the rest of the output levels compare, between the various samples.






Note that with the second prototype, Niwalker added a fifth regular mode – which is also the step-down level from Turbo. There is a very close match to my results across the various samples, and to Niwalker's reported specs.

Ever since the second prototype, Niwalker has been using thermal step-down from Turbo (as opposed to the timed step-down on the first prototype). See runtimes for more info.

*Output/Runtime Graphs:*

_*UPDATE MAY 20, 2014:* First off, a MAJOR apology to all who have been following the development of this model. I accidentally mislabeled some of the runtimes in my testing of the second prototype review. Normally, that would only have been a minor error on the figure legend. But because the MM15 doesn't completely fit inside my lightbox, I do a calibration adjustment to get the right output scale. This means that the wrong adjustment was applied to several of the prototype #2 runtimes, giving the wrong output level on the graphs. 

I am truly sorry about this everyone. I am revised all the graphs below (and in the second prototype review). My thanks again to RedForest UK - it was his current drain data that helped me track down my error. :thumbsup:_

As always, before I get started, my standard runtimes are done on AW protected 18650 2200mAh cells, under a cooling fan.

Let's start with the higher output modes of the new shipping MM15:






As before, the thermal sensor kicks the light down from Turbo to L5 after a few mins of continuous runtime. It took about 6 mins in the runtime above, which was done under fan cooling. Without cooling however, it would likely have stepped down within ~3 mins. As always, I don't recommend you rely on thermal sensors to control output – on super-high output lights like this, you should always be holding the light in your hand on the higher levels, to gauge relative heat and to allow you to turn down the light as necessary.

Let's see how the final shipping version compares to the previous prototypes:






















Now that I have fixed my glitch from the second prototype review, you can see that performance is basically unchanged from the earlier prototypes. This makes a lot more sense now, based on the output/current draw results. Unfortunately, I missed the L5 runtime on the second prototype sample, and no longer have this prototype to re-test (it was sent to Vinh Nguyen for mod testing, and didn't survive the experience).

In case you are wondering how higher capacity cells might fare, here is a comparison of the L4-L6 modes run on NCR18650A 3100mAh cells:














In addition to greater runtime, these cells were also able to keep the output mode slightly more stable at the higher L5 and Turbo settings (at least in the beginning). This means you get brighter light for longer on these levels. On L4, the real advantage was in extended runtime (for comparable output).

FYI, Niwalker reports that they got 4+ hours runtime on L5 with 3400mAh batteries before manually stopping the test (while the light was still fairly bright, all cells >3.19V). 

I am waiting on a couple of modified MM15vn samples from Vinh, and will update this review once I see how they perform. :wave: _*EDIT:*The review of the modded MM15vn samples is now up._

Let's see how the MM15 compares to other MT-G2 lights in my collection. 










Again, these results make more sense now that I've corrected my output curves. Basically, overall efficiency of the MM15 is identical to the Niwalker BKFA02, at all comparable levels. Even though there are two emitters the MM15, it isn't providing any real efficiency advantage over the BKFA02. But due to the largely direct-drive like pattern, these two Niwalker lights remain the most efficient MT-G2 lights in m collection at the moment.  

Of course, a lot of that has to do with the fact that the Niwalker lights are direct-drive on all modes. I have also queried this with Niwalker, and they respond that this is intentional: the MM15 in particular is not designed to have flat regulation, as this would likely result in overheating issues. They actually experimented with a constant-current circuit, but found the light got too hot on L5 and L6. In contrast, they report the light was always comfortable to use by hand outdoors when a direct-drive circuit was installed. Further, they point out that with this circuit in place, there is no visible step down required – and you will get a lot more runtime than with constant output.

I certainly agree with all these points, and think this was indeed the best practical solution to provide high initial outputs and sustained runtimes. 

In response to some questions in my earlier prototype review, I did some additional testing of repeated restarts of the second prototype in Turbo mode. Given the identical performance of my shipping sample, I haven't bothered to repeat these tests – here is what I previously reported:






*Note that I actually let the light cool for ~10 mins between each re-start (not shown on the time scale).* I am only plotting above the time the light was actually on below, so that you can match up the time scale.

As you can see, the output keeps dropping over time, on successive re-starts. For example, after 30 mins,you are down to ~4000 estimated lumens, compared to ~5500 estimated lumens at the start. You also hit ~2000 lumens just before the light shuts-down completely, after ~50 mins. Sorry I can't be more accurate for time, as I accidentally let the light step-down for several minutes before one of the re-starts.

*Potential Issues*

Niwalker has been very responsive to my suggestions for improvement – please see my second prototype review for a summary of changes. Not everything I proposed has been implemented though, and there are still some outstanding potential issues that I can foresee:

You can now jump directly to Turbo from off in momentary mode. However, Turbo is still not available as part of the main memorized sequence when the light is locked on (i.e., you have to turn the light on first and then double-click for locked-on Turbo).

As before, pressing and holding switch when on jumps you to the lowest mode and then ramps up from there (i.e., still doesn't increase output from where you are).

I preferred the more visible and tactile stainless steel switch of the second prototype model. The final shipping version seems to have reverted to the original switch design.

The indicator LEDs under the switch logo are fairly bright (see my post #2 for a possible user solution).

The internal battery carrier has been considerably improved from the original design, but wider and longer high-capacity cells may still be a challenge to insert and remove. As before, no physical lock out is possible (unless you pull the cells), but an electronic lock-out is available.

The original handle design was located too close to the body to be functional, and this has been improved on the final version. However, the attachment screws are trickier to position than previously (although they are also less prominent, which is good if you don't plan to use the handle). Personally, I don't consider the handle necessary on a light this small – and you are better off holding it in your hand anyway (to gauge the heat level).

_UPDATE JUNE 14, 2014:_ There are reports of wear occurring on the center strut of the battery carrier, at the insertion point where batteries go in. I recommend users carefully insert their cells into this light, and monitor the center strut for any signs of wear.

*Preliminary Observations*

_*UPDATE May 20, 2014*: First off - my apologies again for the runtime output scale error on my second prototype review. The final graphs in this review are accurate for all my testing samples (including the second prototype)._

This light has been a long way coming. Niwalker has taken their time over successive engineering samples to refine and develop the build and features of this light – based on my feedback, and from the members here. While no design will please everyone, I think this process has been invaluable in building a better product. :thumbsup:

Simply put, the MM15 is a flood monster in a tiny size. oo: This one of the smallest 4x18650 lights I have ever seen, and the one with the highest output. The use of two neutral white MT-G2 emitters has produced a true "wall of light" that should please wide spill fans. :bow:

As you will see in my analysis above, I believe they have gotten this mostly right. There are still a few interface tweaks that I would have liked, but the light works well in its current form (which is expanded from the initial versions). Niwalker has come through on all their promised upgrades from the last prototype review, and even added one - a much thicker and "grippier" anodizing. 

Personally, I recommend you carry the light without the handle, in order to gauge heat directly by touch. As with all high output lights, you should manually throttle down the output level if you find it is getting uncomfortable to hold. I should note that thermal step-down control is limited to the Turbo mode.

On that front, the use of a direct-drive-like circuit in this light makes sense – both to maximize runtime and minimize heat. The result is a light with excellent efficiency for the class - you get good runtimes on all levels (and with minimal intrusion of thermal step-down). Although most here seem to prefer constant output, direct-drive is more efficient - and you will not be able to notice the gradual drop-off in output as the cells drain.

Now that this much anticipated light is finally shipping, I look forward to hearing more from the members here. :wave: 

P.S.: I am currently waiting on some modified versions of this light from Vinh Nguyen, and will publish a new review when they arrive. 

_*EDIT:* Here's the review of the dome-on and dedome versions of the MM15vn._ 

----

MiniMax Nova MM15 was provided by Niwalker for review.


----------



## selfbuilt (May 19, 2014)

Some members have complained about the overly bright LED indicator under the switch (especially in standby mode). FYI, there is relatively inexpensive solution to this – removable Light Dim stickers. :thumbsup:

I've used these often on my various home electronics with overly bright LED indicators. Usually, a single application of the original strength ones (~70% block) does the trick for most things. For the MM15, I suspect you would want to double-up. Note that the complete block versions (100%) do indeed completely block any trace of the indicator on the MM15. Of course, I never really saw the point of those, since a bit black electrical tape does the job just as well. 

To give you an idea what they look like, here's an example of the native MM15:






And with one standard strength light dim attached:






Now two light dims:






And finally three (with a fourth small one on the top, to compare):






As you can see, two stickers do a pretty good job at reducing the output to quite manageable levels. IF you want to fully block, you can quadruple-up, but probably simplest to just stick a bit of electrical tape there instead. In case you are curious, here is what a single complete block sticker looks like:






The light dims are available from a few retailers, but I've ordered directly from the manufacturer and have gotten them fairly quickly (see link above). :wave:


----------



## kj2 (May 19, 2014)

Thanks for the review 
Will it take flat-top cells?


----------



## plata0190 (May 19, 2014)

Hi selfbuilt! I have a pair of questions for you 
- Here doing a comparision 805 : 5500lm = 740 : x lm the output after 6 minutes in turbo mode decreases from 5300 to 5055 lumens!! is that possible?
- how is possibile that your 2nd prototype had a runtime @2k lm of 5:17 hours and the final version is mush less (about 2,25 hours) ? was that a measurement error?
- comparing your beamshots, I notice a tint difference from IInd and final versions, where the final version appears a bit more yellowish. Am I right?
- do you know why in the final version niwalker covered the frontal flat reflector with a metallic flat cover (aluminum?)
- what battery charger did you use? did you charged at 4,25V?

thank you :thumbsup:


----------



## ven (May 19, 2014)

As always excellent review:twothumbs many thanks:twothumbs its my fav light at the moment,fantastic:thumbsup:


----------



## RedForest UK (May 19, 2014)

Thanks for another comprehensive review selfbuilt :thumbsup:

The revised runtime for L5 seems much more in line with what could be expected now, along with quite closely matching my current reading of 1.05-1.15A. It also makes much more sense regarding its comparison with the run on Turbo mode and the loss in runtime incurred from the 5 minutes at 5000+ lumens. 

I really should have done some calculations before as it did seem too good to be true, but an average of 2000 lumens for 5 hours from 4x 2200mah cells (around 32.5 Wh) would entail about 310 lumens per watt, whilst even in lab conditions as a sole component the MT-G2 maxes out at 150-160. I think the only explanation can be some sort of measurement or calculation error (proving that it happens to even the best of us). The revised runtime of 2.25 hrs suggests a lm/w of about 150, which considering the potential for losses in the circuit itself and the reflector/lens assembly is still very impressive.


----------



## don.gwapo (May 19, 2014)

I may add that it loses the last memory mode when you change battery. It always start on lowest mode after battery change. (on my sample).

Thank you for the review and Niwalker for bringing this little beast to life. :thumbsup:.


----------



## selfbuilt (May 19, 2014)

kj2 said:


> Will it take flat-top cells?


Yes, within limits. The positive contact discs on the carrier are raised by ~1mm or so (eyeballing it visually).



plata0190 said:


> doing a comparision 805 : 5500lm = 740 : x lm the output after 6 minutes in turbo mode decreases from 5300 to 5055 lumens!! is that possible?


My relative output scale doesn't linearly relate to lumens (actually a power relationship, since links in methods description). In this case, I estimate the output of my shipping sample drops from ~5500 lumens at activation to ~4900 lumens after 6 mins.



> comparing your beamshots, I notice a tint difference from IInd and final versions, where the final version appears a bit more yellowish. Am I right?


You can't really trust the white balancing of the camera for the beamshots - it's simply not consistent. I don't have the second prototype around to test, but my final shipping sample may be a bit yellower (that is to say, less warm) than my initial sample. I don't think you can reach much into that though - the actual Cree MT-G2's used could be anywhere from ~5000 Kelvin on down.



> do you know why in the final version niwalker covered the frontal flat reflector with a metallic flat cover (aluminum?)


Beats me, but it does look more "professional" to my eye. 



> what battery charger did you use? did you charged at 4,25V?


I use a number of different chargers, but all terminate within ~4.21-4.22V on fresh cells (slightly lower as the cells age). I don't keep 18650 cells for more than a few months though, so it stays pretty consistent. I would not personally use a charger than terminated at 4.25V - that is not healthy for repeated charging.



> how is possibile that your 2nd prototype had a runtime @2k lm of 5:17 hours and the final version is mush less (about 2,25 hours) ? was that a measurement error?


The issue with my earlier L5 run on the second prototype is that the light doesn't fully fit in my lightbox. So I need to to calibrate the raw lightbox readings against my ceiling bounce method. Usually, this is not a problem. However, now that I have done a bit more testing, I realize that the absolute value or the raw lightbox data for that particular L5 runtime was unusually low (by ~20%) or so. This fact was obscured by the lumen calibration method I was using. 

Normally, I would just re-test the light to see what the problem was - however, I no longer have it, as it was sent to Vinh so he could experiment with modding ahead of the final shipping release. At this point, by best guess is that something caused a resistance issue on that specific runtime test that artificially lowered the output (by up perhaps ~20%), and likely extended the runtime. I can't be more precise (or compensate for it on the graphs), as I don't have a reliable true output value correction for that one lightbox test. 

_*UPDATE May 20, 2014:* I have tracked down my error, and am currently fixing it across both reviews. Please see the main review text for more info._



RedForest UK said:


> The revised runtime for L5 seems much more in line with what could be expected now, along with quite closely matching my current reading of 1.05-1.15A. It also makes much more sense regarding its comparison with the run on Turbo mode and the loss in runtime incurred from the 5 minutes at 5000+ lumens.


Yes, although it does seem like the L5 mode of my shipping sample should last longer than it does. After all, those ~6 mins at >5K lumens should have put a heavy dent in the battery charge - so it's odd that the 2K run from start wouldn't last much longer than my Turbo mode test does. 

FYI, I've tested my shipping sample on NCR18650A 3100mAh cells, and get ~3hr 15min to shut-down (although they maintain slightly higher output throughout the run). Niwalker's own tests on 3400mAh cells got ~4.5 hours before the cells reached ~3.2V (IIRC). So it does seem like my shipping MM15 is on the low side for the L5 test specifically. :thinking:

Niwalker isn't sure what the issue is on my sample's L5 mode, but hopefully the extra two lights from Vinh should help clarify things. I plan to reserve judgement until I see how those lights do. 

_*UPDATE May 20, 2014:* I have tracked down my error, and am currently fixing it across both reviews. Please see the main review text for more info._


----------



## RedForest UK (May 19, 2014)

selfbuilt said:


> Yes, although it does seem like the L5 mode of my shipping sample should last longer than it does. After all, those ~6 mins at >5K lumens should have put a heavy dent in the battery charge - so it's odd that the 2K run from start wouldn't last much longer than my Turbo mode test does.



Actually, according to my measurements the 5k lumen mode draws a peak of around 4 amps, so a little under 4 times the current of level 5. This roughly 300% extra current would lead to an estimated dent of 3 times the time spent in turbo mode instead of level 5, so if that time is 6 minutes (as measured in your runtime graphs), an 18 minute dent would be expected. That seems to be very close to what you actually measured.


----------



## selfbuilt (May 19, 2014)

RedForest UK said:


> Actually, according to my measurements the 5k lumen mode draws a peak of around 4 amps, so a little under 4 times the current of level 5. This roughly 300% extra current would lead to an estimated dent of 3 times the time spent in turbo mode instead of level 5, so if that time is 6 minutes (as measured in your runtime graphs), an 18 minute dent would be expected. That seems to be very close to what you actually measured.


I haven't measured current draws myself - but based on what you report, then yes, my results seem to fit. Can't argue with the math. 

Wish I still had the second prototype to confirm what happened on that L5 runtime. Based on the raw lightbox data, it *seems* like the output scale should have been ~20% lower that I previously reported (and what the light normally produced in testing). Oh well, that ship has sailed - but once I get the new lights from Vinh, I'll have two more samples to compare.

_*UPDATE May 20, 2014:* I have tracked down my error, and am currently fixing it across both reviews. Please see the main review text for more info._


----------



## gopajti (May 20, 2014)

Hi selfbuilt, thanks for review

I would like to share more beamshot pics in this topic, if possible,


----------



## RedForest UK (May 20, 2014)

selfbuilt said:


> Based on the raw lightbox data, it *seems* like the output scale should have been ~20% lower that I previously reported (and what the light normally produced in testing).



That sounds like a reasonable cause for a discrepancy in readings, but based on the math of the capacity of the cells used and efficiency of the MT-G2 a run of 5 hours even at 1600 lumens should be theoretically impossible, requiring 240-250 lumens per watt.

What I found interesting on the previous prototype was how the runtime predictions of my own current readings for ~2500mah cells each matched up very well with your measured runtimes from the level above (and for the same level on the v1 prototype), as shown below.

L2 - I measure: 0.11A (~25hrs estimated runtime)
L3 - I measure: 0.25A (~10hrs estimated runtime) You measure ~10 hrs on prototype 1 and ~25hrs on prototype 2.
L4 - I measure: 0.45A (~5.2hrs estimated runtime) You measure ~5.1hrs on prototype 1 and ~9.5hrs on prototype 2.
L5 - I measure: 1.05A (2.5hrs estimated runtime) You measure ~5.2hrs on prototype 2.

I had considered the possibility that somehow you had set the light to one level below what you thought and the lightbox readings had been misreporting outputs of roughly what would be expected for the level above (about double), leading you to believe that you were on one level above what was actually being run. 

I'm not sure if that would have been possible, but it seems that your graphs for the shipping version match those of the Prototype 2 quite closely except in L5, so if it were the case it must have happened again on the graphs for the shipping versions for Levels 3 and 4.

This is all very speculative of course, but I'd just like to rule out that possibility.


Also, thanks gopajti for the fantastic beamshots.

I would also like to add that this bit of confusion over runtime doesn't detract from my overall impressions of the light, which have been overwhelmingly positive.


----------



## Kamakazikev24 (May 20, 2014)

The review I'd been waiting for! Thanks Selfbuilt :twothumbs
And Gopajti, excellent pictures bud.


----------



## kj2 (May 20, 2014)

Would expect a big difference between the MM15 and TK35UE, but after seeing the comparison, there is a difference but it isn't really big. SR96 comes closest.


----------



## gopajti (May 20, 2014)

kj2 said:


> Would expect a big difference between the MM15 and TK35UE, but after seeing the comparison, there is a difference but it isn't really big. SR96 comes closest.



don't forget, MM15 comes extremely wide beam, much wider than TK35 UE, but not visible full beam on pic


----------



## ven (May 20, 2014)

Beautiful pics as always gopajti,thanks for sharing:thumbsup:


----------



## selfbuilt (May 20, 2014)

gopajti said:


> I would like to share more beamshot pics in this topic, if possible,


Of course, great pics - thanks for sharing. 



kj2 said:


> Would expect a big difference between the MM15 and TK35UE, but after seeing the comparison, there is a difference but it isn't really big. SR96 comes closest.





gopajti said:


> don't forget, MM15 comes extremely wide beam, much wider than TK35 UE, but not visible full beam on pic


Yes, I agree - the wider beam of the MM15 is difficult to capture on camera. I will include the TK35UE in my next batch outdoor shots of the MM15 (just waiting on those MM15vn from Vinh first), but I may need to alter how I do my own standardized beamshots to capture it better.



RedForest UK said:


> I had considered the possibility that somehow you had set the light to one level below what you thought and the lightbox readings had been misreporting outputs of roughly what would be expected for the level above (about double), leading you to believe that you were on one level above what was actually being run.
> 
> I'm not sure if that would have been possible, but it seems that your graphs for the shipping version match those of the Prototype 2 quite closely except in L5, so if it were the case it must have happened again on the graphs for the shipping versions for Levels 3 and 4.
> 
> This is all very speculative of course, but I'd just like to rule out that possibility.


AAARGH! :hairpull:  

You are absolutely right, that is exactly what happened.  After our exchange last night, I came to the same suspicion that some sort of shift may have occurred. I have reviewed all the data this morning, and found out what has happened - there was a shift on the L2-L4 runtimes of the second prototype (i.e., they were reported as L3-L5 in error, using the wrong calibration). The error was perpetuated on the shipping tests, as I was using the same templates to structure the review (all except the L5, where I correctly built the graph off the correct L6 template).

Ah man, I can't believe I made that error in the first place, and didn't catch it during this initial analysis of the shipping sample. :sigh: Using the "med/hi/higher" labels certainly didn't help. I will stick to L-level nomenclature for the revised graphs, which will be coming later today once I get the chance to correctly rebuild the indices. 

My apologies to everyone for the misleading second prototype results - they fill be fixed today. And my thanks to RedForest UK - it was our discussion here that got me to find my error.

Stay tuned ....


----------



## RedForest UK (May 20, 2014)

No worries at all, it just shows that mistakes can happen to all of us. Your reviews are about the best around imo for practically any item, to have that resource available for something so relatively niche as torches is amazing really. Still, sometimes a bit of peer review can help us all out.

The Prototype 2 results did seem too good to be true, and I just wanted to be sure that any errors in given measurements were caught sooner rather than later to avoid any controversy further down the line. Output/runtimes are still very impressive and the overall product is really top class.

Anyway, I look forward to your updated graphs


----------



## selfbuilt (May 20, 2014)

Ok, the review has been revised with the corrected figures. Thanks for your patience and understanding everyone! :wave:



RedForest UK said:


> No worries at all, it just shows that mistakes can happen to all of us. Your reviews are about the best around imo for practically any item, to have that resource available for something so relatively niche as torches is amazing really. Still, sometimes a bit of peer review can help us all out.


Absolutely, I agree entirely - that's part of the reason why I post my reviews here, and not on a static website. In my opinion, these reviews become a much better product once the whole community weighs in. :grouphug:

That said, I am human and perfectionist enough that I hate it when I screw up on an analysis. Especially in this case, since the erroneous second prototype graphs have been out there for a three months. :whoopin:



> The Prototype 2 results did seem too good to be true, and I just wanted to be sure that any errors in given measurements were caught sooner rather than later to avoid any controversy further down the line. Output/runtimes are still very impressive and the overall product is really top class.


Yes, this is quite true. As I make the comment in my revised text, the overall efficiency of the MM15 is pretty much identical to the Niwalker BKFA02, at all comparable levels. These two Niwalker lights remain the most efficient MT-G2 lights in m collection at the moment. :thumbsup:


----------



## saypat (May 21, 2014)

where do you find the MSRP?

thanks


----------



## selfbuilt (May 21, 2014)

saypat said:


> where do you find the MSRP?


Sorry, just updated that in the specs. I believe it is ~$220 USD, as that is what I am seeing for online dealer prices.


----------



## gopajti (May 21, 2014)




----------



## kj2 (May 22, 2014)

Now I see the difference between the MM15 and TK35UE better. That SR Mini does a nice job


----------



## selfbuilt (May 22, 2014)

In case you are wondering how higher capacity cells might fare, here is a comparison of the L4-L6 modes run on NCR18650A 3100mAh cells:















In addition to greater runtime, these cells were also able to keep the output mode slightly more stable at the higher L5 and Turbo settings (at least in the beginning). This means you get brighter light for longer on these levels. On L4, the real advantage was in extended runtime (for comparable output).

FYI, Niwalker reports that they got 4+ hours runtime on L5 with 3400mAh batteries before manually stopping the test (while the light was still fairly bright, all cells >3.19V). 

I am waiting on a couple of modified MM15vn samples from Vinh, and will plan to do additional tests on high-drain cells (i.e., Samsung 20R, >15A rated). Those cells will be needed on the modded lights, but I'll do baseline testing in the stock MM15 as well. :wave:


----------



## kwarwick (May 22, 2014)

Has anyone experienced problems with the built in tripod mount socket? I've tried two different tripod screws and in both cases the screw will only thread in about one revolution before seizing up (these work fine in my cameras). The fun thing is when this happen the socket actually unscrews itself from the light (it has a reverse thread). I assumed I must have gotten a defective one, so I contacted my dealer and they shipped me out a replacement socket. Just got the replacement today and it has the exact same problem! WTF?


----------



## RedForest UK (May 22, 2014)

kwarwick said:


> Has anyone experienced problems with the built in tripod mount socket? I've tried two different tripod screws and in both cases the screw will only thread in about one revolution before seizing up (these work fine in my cameras). The fun thing is when this happen the socket actually unscrews itself from the light (it has a reverse thread). I assumed I must have gotten a defective one, so I contacted my dealer and they shipped me out a replacement socket. Just got the replacement today and it has the exact same problem! WTF?



Yes, my socket also unscrews itself due to the reverse thread when trying to attach to a camera tripod mount. I think it should have glue on the threads instead of lube. Other than that it does screw in fine though. It's only a very minor issue for me (I don't plan on using that mount) and easy enough to fix by cleaning and putting a little glue on the threads before screwing it back in again and leaving to set in place.


----------



## kwarwick (May 22, 2014)

RedForest UK said:


> Yes, my socket also unscrews itself due to the reverse thread when trying to attach to a camera tripod mount. I think it should have glue on the threads instead of lube. Other than that it does screw in fine though. It's only a very minor issue for me (I don't plan on using that mount) and easy enough to fix by cleaning and putting a little glue on the threads before screwing it back in again and leaving to set in place.



Thanks for the quick response. This is a very odd problem that I'm experiencing.

I'm not terribly worried that that the adapter will unscrew from the light, but I am worried that I have two of these adapters now that seem to be manufactured incorrectly since I can't get any of my standard camera tripod screws to engage more than 1 thread. I'm betting not many people have bothered to try the tripod mount so perhaps others have the same problem and just don't know it.


----------



## pageyjim (May 22, 2014)

kwarwick said:


> Has anyone experienced problems with the built in tripod mount socket? I've tried two different tripod screws and in both cases the screw will only thread in about one revolution before seizing up (these work fine in my cameras). The fun thing is when this happen the socket actually unscrews itself from the light (it has a reverse thread). I assumed I must have gotten a defective one, so I contacted my dealer and they shipped me out a replacement socket. Just got the replacement today and it has the exact same problem! WTF?



I haven't tried it yet but I did notice that the tripod socket gets hotter, and hotter much faster than other parts of the light.


----------



## pageyjim (May 22, 2014)

kwarwick said:


> Thanks for the quick response. This is a very odd problem that I'm experiencing.
> 
> I'm not terribly worried that that the adapter will unscrew from the light, but I am worried that I have two of these adapters now that seem to be manufactured incorrectly since I can't get any of my standard camera tripod screws to engage more than 1 thread. I'm betting not many people have bothered to try the tripod mount so perhaps others have the same problem and just don't know it.



It does screw in but not smoothly. After the first turn it feels like it wants to strip the threads. I didn't want to force it but it does work with no apparent damage. After the first thread I have to jiggle it a bit to engage the threads again. No problem, as of yet with the socket coming loose. I wonder if the heat is affecting it?


----------



## kwarwick (May 22, 2014)

pageyjim said:


> Yup same here.


 
Sorry, what are you saying?


----------



## pageyjim (May 22, 2014)

kwarwick said:


> Sorry, what are you saying?



Sorry I gave a more complete answer.


----------



## newbie66 (May 24, 2014)

WOW! Those are truly awesome lights. I don't have any light that are more than a 1000 ANSI lumens yet and man am I impressed!


----------



## ven (May 24, 2014)

newbie66 said:


> WOW! Those are truly awesome lights. I don't have any light that are more than a 1000 ANSI lumens yet and man am I impressed!



Imagine saying that just a few years ago!!! 

All in good time:thumbsup:


----------



## newbie66 (May 24, 2014)

ven said:


> Imagine saying that just a few years ago!!!
> 
> All in good time:thumbsup:



Hehe, a few years ago our jaws would have dropped!


----------



## ven (May 24, 2014)

newbie66 said:


> Hehe, a few years ago our jaws would have dropped!



Its still amazing now in the right form factor,take the fenix tk61 for example at 1000lm,its a beast for the output due to the 96mm head and deep reflector

The mm15vn is astonishing though for its size,here its in between an x3vn and tm15








If you like compact,flood then an mm15 is a must newbie66:twothumbs




Hopefully i will be testing out over next night or 2 camping as callum (4yr old) is feeling a bit better,so flashlights packed,cells charged............all we need is darkness(and no moaning from campers at 20,000lm+ in my bag) yes only packed a few lights :laughing:


----------



## newbie66 (May 25, 2014)

ven said:


> Its still amazing now in the right form factor,take the fenix tk61 for example at 1000lm,its a beast for the output due to the 96mm head and deep reflector
> 
> The mm15vn is astonishing though for its size,here its in between an x3vn and tm15
> 
> ...




Man, do I envy you and son. Bringing him along with 20000lumens is WOW! I really want a 3000 lumens and above light which is why I am trying to save. But then after paying bills and etc made my wallet somewhat empty. Then my local dealer had new Zebralights in stock and fearing that it will be sold out I had to purchase them (H600w mkii & H52w). Too risky to let this chance slip, since the only Zebralights I own is the SC52.

The Niwalker looks really nice with awesome flood and 5000 lumens! Will consider this one as well. And I see that your Keepower fits in it which is a good thing. Tight fitting like my Keepower 14500 840mAh with Zebralight SC52 is a bit discomforting.

I am also tempted to get the Elzetta and HDS Systems and McGizmo(totally out of my league) and Fenix and etc lights but for the sake of a single 3000+ lumens light I try to refrain from getting them. Must control myself!! Too many that I want! Trying to decide when the time comes which super high lumen light I should/able to acquire.


----------



## plata0190 (Jun 3, 2014)

What's the peak beam intensity at 2k lumen?


----------



## pageyjim (Jun 3, 2014)

plata0190 said:


> What's the peak beam intensity at 2k lumen?



My best guess it is app 7300cd at 2k lumens, it is a very floody light.


----------



## carl (Jun 4, 2014)

A big thank you to Selfbuilt for doing the 3 reviews! Also a thank you to the others who posted some pics. I am so enjoying reading up on this light. IMHO, looking at the beamshots seems to confirm that above 2000 lumens or so, further increasing the lumens in a flood-type beam brings diminishing returns in terms of usefulness. At 5000+ lumens, this light needs at least a smidgen more throw. Can Niwalker install some optics for more throw? Or maybe we need to wait for a review of Vinh's dedomed MM15vn to see if taking the domes off the LEDs will increase the throw significantly. 

I'm not a big fan of lights with lots of throw - in fact my favorite light has a flood beam - but for me, a flashlight is meant to be pointed at something, and this thing doesn't require much pointing at all, with 5000+ lumens of flood. Unfortunately, it doesn't reach very far considering the huge lumen output and 4 batts inside. I suspect there are some 200-lumen flashlights that can out-throw this MM15. If Niwalker is able to increase throw just a little more in a future version of the MM15, I sure would be more interested in it. Nonetheless, there is nothing currently on the market like it so Niwalker has a good thing going here.


----------



## tonkem (Jun 4, 2014)

At least until the new Zebralight S6330 comes out, but comparably speaking you have the Lupine Betty TL2 at 4500 lumens in an even smaller package with less flood but more bucks 



carl said:


> A big thank you to Selfbuilt for doing the 3 reviews! Also a thank you to the others who posted some pics. I am so enjoying reading up on this light. IMHO, looking at the beamshots seems to confirm that above 2000 lumens or so, further increasing the lumens in a flood-type beam brings diminishing returns in terms of usefulness. At 5000+ lumens, this light needs at least a smidgen more throw. Can Niwalker install some optics for more throw? Or maybe we need to wait for a review of Vinh's dedomed MM15vn to see if taking the domes off the LEDs will increase the throw significantly.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of lights with lots of throw - in fact my favorite light has a flood beam - but for me, a flashlight is meant to be pointed at something, and this thing doesn't require much pointing at all, with 5000+ lumens of flood. Unfortunately, it doesn't reach very far considering the huge lumen output and 4 batts inside. I suspect there are some 200-lumen flashlights that can out-throw this MM15. If Niwalker is able to increase throw just a little more in a future version of the MM15, I sure would be more interested in it. Nonetheless, there is nothing currently on the market like it so Niwalker has a good thing going here.


----------



## newbie66 (Jun 4, 2014)

The Lupine Betty is insanely expensive though!


----------



## carl (Jun 4, 2014)

The Betty costs almost $900! 

Newbie - exactly as you said, definitely a price for the insane, lol! Or the insanely rich! 

And on that same subject, tonkem, did you sell your older Betty and get a new updated one? Does the beam throw reasonably well? From the beamshots posted on the Lupine site, the new Betty, although still a flood light, appears to have a more 'appropriate' beam with more throw than the MM15 - which has way too much flood and no throw, all because they wanted to make the light shorter and smaller. Shorter and smaller is good, but not if it sacrifices usability.

Also, imho I don't think there will be another Zebralight S6330-type light, regardless of whatever their sales rep may say about it. Their product chart consists of only small single battery-type lights. This shows that their general business philosophy is not large multi-emitter lights. Also, the S6330 probably requires a chunk of expensive hi-quality aluminum 6-8 times the mass of their smaller lights. Its nothing but a huge chunk of metal that has been hollowed out, turning most of it into metal chips for the scrap heap. Not to mention the cost of shipping heavy things around the world to and fro. Also, with the S6330 using 3 times the number of LEDs with a separate driver for each LED but at a price point only twice ($200) as much as their single LED lights ($100), plus their attempts to move manufacturing to the US - which means even less profit per light - all tells me the S6330 is not a big money-maker for them and with a worldwide stale economy, there's no incentive in this direction. 

The only reason I can think of as to why any company would keep building a coke-can sized multi-emitter light is that their smaller lights probably aren't producing enough of a profit and aren't selling as well as Zebralights.

Here's a design idea: Have two 18650 batts sitting parallel to each other in a round tube like the Lupine. This leaves some unused space 90 degrees apart in the tube at the head where the base of each reflector can take up about 1/2 inch depth in that unused space, thus overlapping with the batteries. In other words, the base of the reflectors overlaps with the batteries about 1/2 inch - this allows for deeper reflectors but scrunches the reflectors and batts together at the head-end to keep the overall flashlight length as short as possible.


----------



## tonkem (Jun 4, 2014)

Carl, in answer to your question, no it seems not many folks want to drop the coin for the Lupines (new or used). So I have not picked up the TL2. I figured I would just wait til the end of this year and see what they come out with. Hoping they will add a lower low and perhaps bring back the Wilma (my favorite Lupine) because of the smaller head and great output. It is small and light, whereas the Betty TLs is light, but the head is just slightly bigger. I usually carry the Betty head on the TL (longer) battery. 

I use the 2 Wilma TL's that I have for night cycling and general use, and the Betty for when I need to light up everything  

I am headed on vacation next week, so will have plenty of dark places to use them. 



carl said:


> The Betty costs almost $900!
> 
> Newbie - exactly as you said, definitely a price for the insane, lol! Or the insanely rich!
> 
> ...


----------



## P1X4R (Jun 4, 2014)

I've had mine for a few days now. It's quite a wide flooder! I'm very happy with it.

I've noticed 3400 Orbtronic batteries can fit a little snug inside. Be careful when inserting and removing the batteries. It can cut/nick the battery sleeve that touches the inner tube. However, Panasonic 2900 NCR18650PF batteries fit in and out without any issues.


----------



## carl (Jun 5, 2014)

tonkem - good idea about waiting for a possibly lower low - forgot about that.
P1X4r, congrats on your new light! a few questions: In your opinion, is the low low enough and does it weigh too much?


----------



## CUL8R (Jun 5, 2014)

Hi SB, I've been away from the forum for a little while and thought I might find your evaluations of Vinh's two modded MM15's added when I got back. Any update? I'm still incredibly happy with my MM15vn dome-on version!


----------



## P1X4R (Jun 5, 2014)

carl said:


> tonkem - good idea about waiting for a possibly lower low - forgot about that.
> P1X4r, congrats on your new light! a few questions: In your opinion, is the low low enough and does it weigh too much?



the low mode is fairly low. you can read comfortably with it in the dark without your eyes feeling strained from the light. much lower than my fenix pd35's lowest mode. as for weight.. it's very easy to hold. it doesn't weigh a ton like it feels you're swaying a brick.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 5, 2014)

CUL8R said:


> Hi SB, I've been away from the forum for a little while and thought I might find your evaluations of Vinh's two modded MM15's added when I got back. Any update? I'm still incredibly happy with my MM15vn dome-on version!


It will be coming soon. There was a delay in receiving the lights. I expect to have the reviews up within a week.


----------



## CUL8R (Jun 5, 2014)

selfbuilt said:


> It will be coming soon. There was a delay in receiving the lights. I expect to have the reviews up within a week.



Thanks for the quick reply. Looking forward to your review.


----------



## plata0190 (Jun 12, 2014)

Finally I bought it and arrived yesterday. But I been a bit disappointed for the following points:
- power dual led is too bright
- the power button is very hard to press and hard to find at touch because flat. It's nice to be flat, but eventually a presence of a little protuberance at the center would improve it, the same you find on the 5 key on remotes.
- battery carrier is made that whenever you insert your cells, their labels are going to be schratched. In my case it happened by only the first time.
- matt knurling is only esthetic and would not be usefull, otherwhere I noticed the design very basic: the bottom of the cap is very simple. A design like Nitecore TM would be nice.
- the handle is very small, and would be better if made by plastic. Holster is not adaptable with it.
- lanyard attachment made in Iron is a strange choice, because is scratching easyly the aluminium body.
- to be more stylish the key would be better if made of the same colour of the glass ring, as was on the II prototype.

I'm glad that Niwalker read this opinion to improve his future revisions of the MM15 

However I'm very happy with this light


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 12, 2014)

Yes,I'm not sure why they reverted back to the original switch design - I too preferred the stainless one (with raised logo) from the second prototype.

FYI, my review of the Vinh Nguyen modded MM15vm (both dome on and dedome) is now up. :wave:


----------



## plata0190 (Jun 13, 2014)

Hi, after only 1 day of use, that inserting batteries for about 5 times, that they made a huge schratch in center gutter of the batt carrier. It became a hole!!!
I'ìm the only one who happened this? I'm considering it like a manufacturing issue, because I heard people that observed cells label schratches, but no one who happened this hole. I'm using 4 Soshine 3400 mah, so they are in line with all, just the more short one.

See some pics attached and tell me please what you suggest me to do. Is better to replace with a new one or to wait new revisions from Niwalker
thank you


----------



## carl (Jun 14, 2014)

I don't blame you one bit for being upset, considering the $220 pricetag for this light, and for that matter, hugely disappointing REGARDLESS of price. This situation warrants a return for replacement or refund. 

I suppose we can chalk this problem up as a "bug" in the "original shipping version 1" and a needed fix for a future "shipping version 2" of this light.

The exact same thing happened during the review of the same light renamed OHLED Combat Double - see pics in link below:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...es-Nova-MM15-quot-(2xMT-G2-P0-4x18650)-review

I assume the black battery carrier posts are made of plastic - say what?


----------



## plata0190 (Jun 14, 2014)

Niwalker used aluminium to make the handle that's is not important, but used plastic to make the carrier...
Maybe this hole is inadvertently caused, when springs was soldered?


----------



## plata0190 (Jun 14, 2014)

@selfbuilt: please let know Niwalker about these issues. I would suggest for the next revision, hope will be release soon, to shorten head therad of about 5 mm to improve battery insertion. Eventyually these 5 mm can be added to the tube thread.
Another improvement is to replace the center raceway with a metalic material like on zebralight.

That's all


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 14, 2014)

plata0190 said:


> @selfbuilt: please let know Niwalker about these issues.


I know Niwalker monitors these threads, so I'm sure they will notice this post. Personally, I would recommend you contact your dealer for a replacement. I can only guess that was a manufacturing defect (hard to see how it would have happened by inserting a cell). That said, I would check your batteries to make there is nothing protruding form the base where the protection circuit is located (i.e., the heat shrink wrap should be fully intact on all cells, at all times).

_EDIT: Upon inspection, I can see signs of wear starting on my shipping sample. It looks like repeated battery changes can indeed wear down the center strut._


----------



## ven (Jun 14, 2014)

Just checked centre pole on my carrier and has a slight mark/wear on 2 sides, so i wrapped some insulation tape around the bottom. Being extra careful helps but a very poor design choice of materials. Presume to keep weight down.......even though its not a light weight flashlight:thinking: . I would not have noticed that and only had the cells out 3 or 4 times............

Defo worth a check for anyone who has this light,some tape or could strip down and fit some shrink wrap on it for extra protection. 

Maybe Niwalker will offer an upgrade/replacement part:twothumbs

Edit- just to add i am using either IMR 2100 or vtc5 cells so a little shorter than protected cells,maybe that has helped me over some with longer cells.Its still tricky to fit without catching when fitting them in at an angle.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 14, 2014)

ven said:


> Just checked centre pole on my carrier and has a slight mark/wear on 2 sides, so i wrapped some insulation tape around the bottom.


That's probably a good idea in the short term.

FYI, I just checked, and there are signs of minor wear on two sides of the centre strut on my stock shipping MM15. No signs of wear yet on my two MM15vn samples. The earlier prototype used a different material, and no signs there either. But of course, my shipping MM15 has gone through a lot more battery changes than probably anyone else's light right now. While not severe on my unit, I wouldn't definitely recommend that Niwalker improve this material. And in the meanwhile everyone should check their units to make sure they aren't showing signs of wear.


----------



## ven (Jun 14, 2014)

Yes agree there selfbuilt as easy to miss!!!it might function fine with the centre post out but for now the electrical insulation tape should protect if ,just a couple of raps,carefully fit cells in and should be good..............for now:thumbsup: No issue on getting cells in/out after trying,could remove the centre pole and maybe coat or cover for a beter long term fix............if Niwalker does not beat us to it HINT HINT

Sure cable shrink raps would work well,shame its just something we need to do


----------



## P1X4R (Jun 14, 2014)

mine has similar wear in the same location. I didn't notice that before.

I was using Orbtronic 3400 batteries which fit tightly. I've since switched to Panasonic NCR18650PF's which are shorter in length. No issues with getting the battery covers nicked/cut.


----------



## ven (Jun 14, 2014)

Yes i found same,with mine being an mm15vn its only had IMR cells in it,still catches though after a while but not to the degree of the above pics..............certainly needs addressing or Niwalker will have a lot of complaints down the line.

P1X4R i would put a small bit of electrical tape,just enough to go around once or twice(1") then will protect better and save checking it every time you remove cells..........just a thought:thumbsup:


----------



## P1X4R (Jun 14, 2014)

good advice ven! i'll do that. :thumbsup:


----------



## plata0190 (Jun 15, 2014)

Hey guys, this wear was not diffucult to see. I noticed that 2 pcb screws are missing. I'm going to teturn the flashlight back and wait the next upgrade. If nothing will released, I will buy the same or will wait other brands with dual MT-G2


----------



## RedForest UK (Jun 15, 2014)

I just wanted to say that I've been using mine with protected 18650s (mainly Xtar 2600mah 18700s actually) and have had no issue at all with the central pillar despite multiple battery changes. So I don't think it's such a consistent problem as it may seem.


----------



## plata0190 (Jun 17, 2014)

Niwalker confirmed they have released an upgraded version in the new batches, so I would order the new batch from dealer in germany.
This liht is pretty adorable


----------



## ven (Jun 17, 2014)

I emailed Niwalker about the issue and linked here,hopefully they "might" send the part/carrier to owners.


----------



## carl (Jun 23, 2014)

What did they do to fix the middle post?


----------



## richardcpf (Jun 26, 2014)

Today I recieved my Niwalker MM15. The amount of flood and OTF output is unbelievable for a light this size. I think it will compliment nicely with the FF4.

I have noticed the battery carrier middle post is being scratched when I insert Protected cells in it. It must be done very carefully to avoid that. It seems to be made of a soft/rubberized plastic, most likely hollow. With shorter, unprotected, button-top Panasonic 3400mAh, there wasn't any problem. Look at the the photo below:

With longer cells, it needs more spring compression to get the battery inside, hence a greater angle of insertion is required. Eagletac 3400mAh protected 18650 being used, this cell is almost 70mm long.








An effective, possibly permanent, no-cost solution: :naughty:






Yeah, that's a piece of straw.


----------



## P1X4R (Jun 28, 2014)

haha, that's genius. 

btw, be careful taking them out. you might scratch the batteries. i fold a small piece of paper to help protect. i'm loving this light despite this flaw.


----------



## LeukTech (Jul 3, 2014)

Shame this light isn't constant output. I find the direct-drive type of LED lights kind of annoying, as I am always second guessing whether or not I am getting X amount of lumens and wondering if the output is dropping or if it's just my eyes. I would rather be 100% certain that I am getting X amount of lumens consistently for a set-in-concert amount of time based on the mode I am in and the capacity of my batteries. 

Direct-drive is the way of the past (ie incandescent lights). I prefer my LED light output to be controlled and maintained at the lumen level advertised until the cells cannot handle it anymore, then it either noticeably drops to a lower level or just cuts the light off. I HATE when the light tapers down in brightness. Runtime efficiency means nothing when the lumen output is gradually dropping seconds after you turn it on. If I buy a LED light and it says (for example) 1500 lumens for 2 hours on a 3400mAh battery, I expect to get ~1500 lumens for 2 hours on that battery, not 1500 lumens for 5 minuets then a slow taper to zero lumens for 1 hour and 55 minuets. It is borderline false advertising. 

This direct-drive stuff seems to be a trend with the MT-G2 lights, which I find unsettling. My Solarforce K3 does the same thing, and I really do not like it at all. I hate having to constantly worry about the voltage of my batteries to get 100% guaranteed output at a certain mode, it feels like we are back in the 90's with incandescent bulbs. I want to be able to switch to a mode and know I am getting a defined constant light output, regardless of my batteries voltage (unless they are dead or near dead of course).


----------



## leggera16 (Jul 3, 2014)

Hey I just picked up one of these from hkequipment(ebay) and ran it on cgr18650cg (5amps max rated i think). Doesnt look quite as impressive as I had hoped but the build quality seems worth the money. Perfect tint too.

Would it be worth me getting some ncr18650PF (10a) hybrids for a bit more punch or is there better options for £24.60. Ie if I dont need more amps than Iv tried I could get higher mah cells instead. My aim is to raise the l5 mode like in the graphs when selfbuild used 3100 cells over aw's. I thought aw's might be imr or something high drain but 3100 cells look better all round on the output graphs and runtime? 

*Just offered on some 3400mah ncr18650b's so waiting on his reply. Cheers

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/151333325475?_trksid=p2059216.m2763.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2-GENUINE...rElectronics_Batteries_SM&hash=item5403c1c353

*Did a 40 min walk in the country tonight in two halves with 30 mins rest in between. Used 775mah from my batteries. I used turbo around 5 times for 60 seconds max and mostly l4-l5. The last ten minutes it seemed to get warmer than on the way out and the red led came on while on turbo. I guess my batteries suck as I wasnt even halfway into their tested mah.

I love the beam but people in a 130 degree angle to me where not so impressed including a police officer driving and two other guys who were pissed how pathetic their torches looked. The guys were on a road at a 90 degree angle to my beam and 100ft away and all i heard was feck me and owww. As I suspected when its on any higher than l2-l3 you have to point it at your toes if you dont want to blind a car driver. This kind of negates why I wanted it as I hoped for a torch that lights my way not illuminates a bird on a tree 5 miles away. 

Maybe I can knock up a rubber boot to block the very outer edge of spill that is pissing people off.

Anyway I sound negative but this torch feels good, lights up a field, didnt seem to use much juice from my aging batteries. It fits in the rear pocket of my skinny jeans plus I get on well with the button and ui. I love the green illumination so I can find the button to turn my hand heater down 

Got bored of spending hours charging 4 single cells only to know the torch can drain them in a month "locked out" or not so improvised a mechanical lockout. I may redo it when I have better materials but it seems to work well. I wanted to use a thin disc of tin and some silicone to stick it to the inside of the can but dont have any right now. The flex in the silicone would even out the pressure between the two contacts.

I cut one of the electrodes from a battery point and added a lump of solder on top of the end plate. Then added two thin washers to the center electrode. I took the anodising off the inside of the battery can and now it uses that for total lock out. 



*As you can see the center post is integral to the circuit and is metal. I insert my cells holding the middle with my thumb and middle finger and pushing down with my index finger. This controls the direction of force and hasnt damaged my paper thin battery wraps or post yet (Iv just put cellotape on just incase).*


----------



## plata0190 (Jul 7, 2014)

Hey, finally Niwalker sent a new revision out: about 5 days ago Niwalker released a new batch with here some upgrades.
- Battery carrier has been moved more out of the body and to make the cup closing, they left out PCB plastic protector.
At least now is more easy inserction of batteries and they won't gone scratched.
- A new lanyard is available in the bundle
- Holster is changed: now the MM15 fits in it, no matter if the handle is installed or not
- Brightness sequence continue from the last you used, instead starting at the level1
- Now when pressing the power button in turbo mode, the flashlight goes into normal mode, instead to turn off.
I hope I was usefull Now Iis time to order it!! 

http://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=650&t=3981177


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 7, 2014)

Thanks for the update. Looking forward to hearing here from users who receive the new version. The updated build and user interface sound good. :wave:


----------



## ven (Jul 8, 2014)

Well i decided to put a straw over the centre tube(not latest edition). Removed end hex screws,then noticed the sleeve will come off to reveal a metal post,so not hollow after all BUT potentially a short if battery wrap wears through and post,so imo better to be safe than 











Yeh yeh i had no black straws but hey,its not on show :laughing:




Now what i did notice,when fitting the + end,it flashed green then went red ,loosened and turned another 1/4 turn,same again i am thinking "what have i done" but turned another 1/4 and fine. Must have to be lined up so if removed either mark or take not of when its come off with the + on top.


----------



## leggera16 (Jul 8, 2014)

I have the new stuff yay. I like the UI so far. I do have a small black fleck in the end of one of the leds. Pretty much on the cross point of the smaller dies so hopefully wont be an issue with heat or something. I always wonder if il get the dodgiest torch on a "best offer" on ebay as thats what I would do ha ha. 

Physical lockout is still working for me and have some sony us18650nc1 2900mah (only $6 each) to see if the're any brighter than my old laptop pulls. Flat tops are a good fit so far and looks like it will make a wider contact than buttons anyway so Il stick with flats.

If your gonna take something apart always take a pic like this, just incase anyone needs it I expect its the same layout regardless of version.


----------



## ven (Jul 8, 2014)

Yes a good idea,and its something i normally do................normally :laughing: I did not notice the + at 1st but removed it and put at side to refit same way..................except i moved the body around

Got there in the end,still it marks the vtc5 cells easy on the head part:sigh: just not a good design,the improved idea of it coming out more certainly sounds better............shame they did not get it right 1st time.............


----------



## leggera16 (Jul 8, 2014)

Did I read somewhere that niwalker may be happy to send you the upgraded parts if you ask/complain. Maybe I dreamt it lol worth asking though if it isnt functioning perfectly


----------



## ven (Jul 8, 2014)

I sent an email a while back,might be in these posts when I said I sent it,no reply....

Mine is working fine though,no issues,it was about the carrier side and wear. Since I have had a closer look it's just a thin plastic/rubber pipe with steel behind so not as weak as 1st thought. The straw will do to prevent any wear so  For now

It would be better if they supplied a proper cover for the post or upgraded parts.


----------



## dazed1 (Jul 14, 2014)

So what i'm missing here, 5 hours + @2000 lumens?? how is that even possible?

Or even 5000+ for 2 hours??


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 14, 2014)

dazed1 said:


> So what i'm missing here, 5 hours + @2000 lumens?? how is that even possible?
> Or even 5000+ for 2 hours??


No, it's 2000 lumens for 2+ hours (on the 2200mAh 18650 batteries used here). The 5000 lumen Turbo mode steps down after a few mins to the lower 2000 level (hence the longer runtime). The 5 hours spec for the 2000 lumen level was wrong, as it was based on a calibration scale error in my earlier prototype testing. The runtime graphs in this review of the shipping version are accurate.


----------



## dazed1 (Jul 14, 2014)

selfbuilt said:


> No, it's 2000 lumens for 2+ hours (on the 2200mAh 18650 batteries used here). The 5000 lumen Turbo mode steps down after a few mins to the lower 2000 level (hence the longer runtime). The 5 hours spec for the 2000 lumen level was wrong, as it was based on a calibration scale error in my earlier prototype testing. The runtime graphs in this review of the shipping version are accurate.



Thanks, sorry!

Edit, what does to 50% means in the runtime graphs?

2.25 hours > 50% on lvl 5?


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 14, 2014)

dazed1 said:


> Edit, what does to 50% means in the runtime graphs?


It means the time it takes for the light to drop to 50% of its original output. 

Prior to the release of the ANSI FL-1 standard for runtime measures (which is defined as time to 10% output), most people here used 50% as a good end point for comparing lights. In well-regulated lights, time to 50% and time to 10% are typically the same, or similar. But in lights with a direct-drive like pattern (like this one), a time to 10% measure results in much longer stated runtimes. Many object to this fairly low cut-off of 10% output in ANSI FL-1 measures (i.e., you would not intuitively think ~15% output was still considered within published runtime specs, but it is). The spec was agreed to by manufacturers, were it has inherent marketing advantages for lights that run on low power alkalines.


----------



## dazed1 (Jul 15, 2014)

selfbuilt said:


> It means the time it takes for the light to drop to 50% of its original output.
> 
> Prior to the release of the ANSI FL-1 standard for runtime measures (which is defined as time to 10% output), most people here used 50% as a good end point for comparing lights. In well-regulated lights, time to 50% and time to 10% are typically the same, or similar. But in lights with a direct-drive like pattern (like this one), a time to 10% measure results in much longer stated runtimes. Many object to this fairly low cut-off of 10% output in ANSI FL-1 measures (i.e., you would not intuitively think ~15% output was still considered within published runtime specs, but it is). The spec was agreed to by manufacturers, were it has inherent marketing advantages for lights that run on low power alkalines.




Thanks. What about the runtime compassion with the 3100 mah cells, is it ANSI standard measuring as well i guess?


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 15, 2014)

dazed1 said:


> Thanks. What about the runtime compassion with the 3100 mah cells, is it ANSI standard measuring as well i guess?


I don't report runtimes to the ANSI standard of 10% output. Instead, I present the actual full runtime graph (and mention time to 50% in the legend).


----------



## Danielsan (Nov 4, 2014)

so when i order one from banggood, how can i see if its the new version of the light? The picture above has still the orange PCB, how can i realize the updated one?


----------



## leggera16 (Nov 22, 2014)

Is the main physical give away the lack of plastic plate on the end of the battery carrier? I think this was removed so there was an extra 2mm for batteries.

mine just has sticky paper on now


----------



## ven (Nov 22, 2014)

leggera16 said:


> Is the main physical give away the lack of plastic plate on the end of the battery carrier? I think this was removed so there was an extra 2mm for batteries.
> 
> mine just has sticky paper on now



I thought and stand to be corrected that the "sticky paper" was there to cover the screws,iirc there may be 2 or so lots of in case of removing the cover.......but thought this was on top so would not effect the internal measurements

On a side note,when i removed the end section and fitted the straw mod( that works a treat) i did notice the centre post is in fact metal inside with rubber sleeve. So it was not as bad as i 1st thought,but could still cause an issue if the cell rap and a worn rubber centre post allowed to came in contact................

My concern now is more on the edge of the head when fitting cells,extra care is required not to scrape the cell raps due to angle...........Not an issue with IMR being shorter in length,but now aware its possible with care to avoid any damage:thumbsup:


----------



## rsen (May 4, 2015)

2 questions:

1. What is the lumen level for the strobe function? (5000 lumens or 2000 lumens?)
2. How long can the strobe mode stay on continuously?

Thanks


----------



## richbuff (May 4, 2015)

rsen said:


> 2 questions: 1. What is the lumen level for the strobe function? (5000 lumens or 2000 lumens?) 2. How long can the strobe mode stay on continuously? Thanks


 1. Same as turbo, 5233 lumens. 2. Strobe run time should be double what turbo run time is speced. Turbo run time is speced at three hours, so turbo run time would be six hours.


----------

