# DarkTort DT-E1.0 Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, DETAILED PICS, and more!



## selfbuilt (Jan 3, 2009)

_*Reviewer's note:* the DarkTort DT-E1.0 was supplied for review by DarkTort. Please their manufacturer's thread on CPFMP for more info._

_Warning: pic heavy!_

_UPDATE JANUARY 4, 2009: Additional pics and info have been added to the review, based on feedback from DarkTort. See also my response posts later in this thread._

*Manufacturer’s reported specs:*
CREE Q5 WC, maximum output 225 lumens.
PWM-based low output.
Battery discharge protection mode.
Three-stage (high, low, strobe) light modes.
IC efficiency up to 96%.
Anti-rolling rugged design.
Impact-resistant optical window with Dual-Coating technique.
Mil-spec Type III Hard Anodized finish.
Impact and drop-resistant according to US-MIL-STD-810F.
Waterproof to IPX-8 standard.
Forward clicky.
Length: 140mm, Head diameter: 32, Body diameter: 25.5mm, Weight: 168g
Package: Gift box
Battery: Only 18650
Lanyard: Taiwan MagForce
Flashlight body available can be disassembled, users can change the emitter.
DarkTort is a new arrival to the flashlight scene, and the DT-E1.0 is their first flashlight. Note that this light is 18650-only. MSRP is ~$75.

Let’s get right to the pics:











The light comes in a good quality hard case with metal closing clasp. Sandwiched between the textured foam pieces is the light, extra o-rings, and good quality wrist lanyard. Located under the bottom foam piece is the manual and warranty card.

Does this packaging look familiar? Here’s a blow-up from a page of the manual as well:






Maybe it’s just me, but this looks a LOT like the Edgetac/Nitecore packaging for their lights. Even the o-rings look the same. Interestingly, DarkTort also uses the same viscous blue lube that Edgetac does (and too much of it – again, sound familiar? )










The DT-E1.0 is a visually interesting light to look at. The stainless steel bezel is a nice touch, engraved with the company logo. Anodizing is a flawless dark black on my sample, and lettering is sharp and clear. A number of labels are present on the body, to indicate battery orientation and light mode switching, in addition to a good number of identification labels (again, sound like the first products of another manufacturer we know? ).






As you see can see, the head has an unusual contact surface. Pics in DarkTort’s CPFMP thread show more detail of the internal components, but I haven’t been able to open the head by hand. I’ll have to break out the strap wrenches later and give it a go. Here’s what the business end looks like:






Now that’s interesting – it appears that the red aluminum pieces show through at the base of the reflector. Very stylish. Reflector is OP textured, and fairly deep. According to specs, the emitter is a Cree Q5 premium WC tint.

_*UPDATE:* I managed to open the head by hand, using a cloth around the bezel (strap wrenches weren't necessary). Here' what you'll find:










Nice construction here - note the o-rings at both along the lens inside the stainless steel bezel ring and at the base of the screw threads on the head piece. The reflector looks like a solid piece of metal. But be warned that the reflector and emitter/pill are not screwed it - they will both just fall out if you tip the head over once the stainless steel bezel ring is removed. 

I have disassembled the screws holding the pill unit together - see the end of this review for detailed pics. Those 3 contacts points in the head are indeed mounted on springs, and control the Hi/Lo sensors for the head twist._






The tail region is unusual. Although you can lock the light out by twisting the tailcap (anodized threads), you can’t insert/remove the battery this way. The battery can only be exchanged by unscrewing the head portion. The tail region is not wide enough to allow a battery to pass through, like you find on a number of Surefire lights.

Body tube width is ample to accommodate my protected AW 18650 batteries. In fact, with room to space - I can detect some battery rattle when shaking the light.






The tail switch is a forward clicky – press for momentary on, click to lock-on. The traverse is longer than more clicky lights, and I find mine is a little “squishy” (i.e. you aren’t always sure if you’ve pressed it enough for it to lock-on, and it sometimes feels like it’s not fully secure). 

Note the switch retaining ring is metal in the centre, but plastic for the portion that screws into the tailcap.

_*UPDATE:* DarkTort has announced a new switch assembly for all currently shipping DT-E1.0 lights. Details are available in the CPFMP thread, post 213._

Here's how it fits in my hand (note that I have relatively long fingers ).






As for dimensions, my sample is 141.8mm (length) by 32.3mm (head width) or 25.1mm (tailcap width) – consistent with manufacturer specs. 

Weight without battery is 119.5g, which is less than manufacturer’s claim (UPDATE: DarkTort has now revised their estimate to match mine).

Here’s how it compares to the competition:





From left to right: AW 18650, DarkTort DT-E1.0, JetBeam Jet-III M, Jet-III ST, Edgetac Raidfire Spear, Olight T20, Olight M20 Warrior.

As you can see, it’s about the same size as the Jet-III M or Olight M20. As such, I’ve used those two lights for the beamshots below. All lights on max on 18650, ~0.5 m from a white wall. 


















As you can see, the DT-E1.0 is quite bright on 18650 (more on that later). Beam profile is very similar to those lights, although the DT-E1.0 seems a little less ringy to me.

*User Interface*

The UI is quite simple: tighten the head for Hi, loosen slightly for Lo. To activate the strobe, simply do a rapid loosen-tighten switch from Hi mode. I haven’t measured the strobe freq yet, but it is definitely one of the highest I’ve seen (i.e. quite “tactical”).

Press the forward clicky for momentary on, click for lock-on.

*Testing Method:* All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlightreviews.com method. 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. Throw values are the square-root of lux measurements taken at 1 meter from the lens, using a light meter (peak throw is determined for each light, and reported here). 

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*






Ok, one of the first things to notice: DT-E1.0 initial Hi output is one of the highest I’ve ever seen for a Q5 light.  It’s neck-and-neck to my Raidfire Spear by ceiling bounce, and has the highest reading yet in my lightbox.

Throw is under 10K lux (which is less than the near 16K lux reported by the manufacturer) but within the range of other lights of this size.

_*UPDATE:* Shipping versions with have a Lo mode output that is half what was shown here, see explanation in runtime section._

*Output/Runtime Comparison:*

First off – how does this light compare to the other 18650-only competition?






Now that’s interesting! Unlike the other 18650-only lights, the DT-E1.0 is not fully regulated on Hi. :thinking: In fact, that’s a rather unique runtime pattern – it seems to slowly decay from max, then briefly jumps back up to max before dropping down.

But here’s the next interesting bit – it doesn’t drop to zero output or simply fall out of regulation the way all the other 18650-only lights do. Instead, it drops to a regulated low output around ~2% of max. I ran the light for over 3 hours at this min level, and it was still going strong! 

You’ll also note that the light runs a lot longer on 18650 than my regulated 18650-only lights do. Given the interesting trace, I thought I’d compare it to multi-power lights on 18650. Note that virtually all multi-power lights are direct drive on 18650:






Well, well, what do you know – the DT-E1.0 trace looks an awful lot like direct-drive, until the blip near the end. _The difference is that the DT-E1.0 appears to be the most heavily-driven direct-drive light on 18650 I’ve seen yet._ oo:

How about the low mode?






I haven’t done a lot of low mode runtime tests to compare, but the ~11hr regulated runtime seems a bit on the low side to me for a defined output light (i.e. that's more what I would expect for a continuously-variable PWM light). It is also less than the 18hr runtime the manufacturer reports.

Note again that the light goes into the regulated “moon mode” low light level at the end of the run. It lasted for ~1.5 hours at this level before the cell's protection circuit was tripped (UPDATE: I've updated the runtime above to show you when it actually cut-off - hit your browser refresh if it doesn't show). :thumbsup:

_*UPDATE:* DarkTort reports that these early review samples erroneously had a MCU adjusted to twice normal output for the Lo mode, hence the shorter runtimes than what they reported (i.e. this sample's Lo is reported to be 20% of max, but shipping version should be 10% of max as originally proposed). If that is indeed the case, I would expect at least twice the runtime at the lower output level. _

*Potential Issues*

Aside from the lack of true regulation on Hi, the only real efficiency issue I’ve noticed is the slightly short regulated runtime on Lo.

The tail switch clicky feels a little “squishy” on mine (i.e. you aren’t always sure if you’ve pressed it enough for it to lock-on, and it sometimes feels like it’s not fully secure).

_*UPDATE 01/12/09:* In response to CPF user feedback about the poor switch feel, DartTort has announced a new design that will be included from now on with all shipping lights. Details and pic posted in their CPFMP thread here._

*General Observations*

There’s no doubt that the DT-E1.0 is an impressive looking light that comes in a nice package. As a first offering nowadays, it’s a bit unusual to come out with an 18650-only light with just 2 output modes (plus strobe). But I’m sure the KISS principle and stylish design will be appreciated by many. :kiss:

The most unusual aspect of this light is the circuit performance. I know a lot people will decry the seemingly direct-drive pattern on Hi – but take a closer look at the 18650-only runtime comparison graph. As you’ll see, the DT-E1.0 produces more light for longer than any of my fully-regulated 18650-only lights in my collection. oo:

This really is the best of both worlds, IMO – the most maximally-driven and efficient setup on Hi I’ve seen in a 18650 Q5 light. :thumbsup:

The Lo mode is actually quite bright and useful in its own right. Better than the Raidfire Spear’s extreme low, in comparison. But the runtime efficiency at this level seems a little low on my sample.

Regardless of how you feel about the defined output level runtime patterns, the regulated minimum level when the battery is near exhaustion is something I’ve not seen before. Usually, you hit the battery protection circuit like a brick wall, or else you drop out of regulation for a low moon mode. This regulated moon mode is a welcome new addition to the scene. Note too that DarkTort claims to have a built-in battery protection feature – unfortunately, I don’t have any unprotected 18650s to test that with.

For a first offering, this light suggests to me that DarkTort knows how to make high quality lights that are not run-of-the-mill. I'm curious to see what they come out with next. 

-------------------

*UPDATE JANUARY 5, 2009:*

_For those curious about modding the existing pill, here's what I found when I disassembled the pill:






As you can see, the emitter is easily accessed by removing the 3 screws on the cover plate. Looks like they used a good amount of thermal epoxy, but you should be able to pop out the mini-star for a DIY emitter swap pretty easily (with basic modding skills and components).






The circuit board is also easy to access should you want to. But be warned - the contact retaining plate is attached under pressure (i.e. the 3 longer screws are holding the plate in place, against the resistance of the 3 springs used to control mode switching). 

I found it a real pain to re-attach this plate, as you need to carefully tighten each screw while gently but firmly holding it all together against the springs (recall the exposed emitter dome at the other end of the pill!). When tightening the screws, it's easy for the plate to slip sideways a little - which then makes it impossible to fit back into the head, because tolerances are tight. 

Remember that the pill assembly is not screwed in - pressure is maintained by the bezel ring/lens pressing down on the reflector, which in turn presses down on the pill assembly. On the plus side, a manufacturer upgrade of the entire pill assembly (i.e the entire red aluminum section) would be child's play for anyone to swap on their own._


----------



## Jarl (Jan 3, 2009)

I like the moon mode, but I'm just wondering how they managed to increase the DD current- low Vf emitter?

Anyone else have any idea's?

For a company, IMO they're shaping up quite well- not afraid to go against the flow somewhat if the results are worth it.

Top review  (as always!)


----------



## bluecrow76 (Jan 3, 2009)

Excellent review (as usual!) and very interesting light! The regulated moon mode is a very neat feature.


----------



## Kamakazikev24 (Jan 3, 2009)

Wow that was fast! Well done Selfbuilt!
That small peak when the battery is almost flat is like the Nitecore's as well if I remember correctly......
Like the way it will run on a low level for a few hours, giving some emergency light. That could come in handy.


----------



## Axion (Jan 3, 2009)

Excellent review, very interesting (promising) first light from the company with the odd name.


----------



## DM51 (Jan 3, 2009)

This review has been eagerly awaited, and it does not disappoint - either in the very high quality of the work put into doing the review, or in the quite unusual features of the light itself. 

This new maker, DarkTort, has attracted a great deal of comment and speculation. Their attention to correspondence in their thread in the MP has been very good - much better than some established makers - and this responsiveness gives us reason to hope that their future products will be as innovative and will attract as much attention as this very interesting debut. It looks like they've made an excellent start.

I'm moving this to the Reviews section.


----------



## Zatoichi (Jan 3, 2009)

I've really liked the look of this since I first saw it. It's good to hear it's a decent performer too. The price sounds about right, so I think this has made it to my 'wanted' list. Thanks for the review.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Jan 3, 2009)

Great review selfbuilt!

If only this one would have run the full 18 hours on low, like Darktort originally claimed it would. I really like the idea of maximum brightness for as long as possible, and then a true moon mode for several hours afterwards. How come more manufacturers aren't doing this?


----------



## lightmyway (Jan 3, 2009)

Thanks for the excellent review and as i anticipated a well thought out design,and it sure looks good i,m sure i will be happy with my purchase .


----------



## worldedit (Jan 3, 2009)

Thanks for the review!
Maybe the runtime is that short on low because it goes into moon mode to early. Did you measure the battery voltage after the test?


----------



## Sgt. LED (Jan 3, 2009)

Thank you for the review self-built, fantastic as always.

I can deal with the runtime not being quite what they claimed it to be but what I AM very unhappy about is that they claim 16,000 Lux and deliver 9,000.

Where are my missing lumens?


----------



## xpea (Jan 3, 2009)

Very interesting light and great review as usual. To summarize:

Pros
*high manufacturing quality
*attractive look (even if it's subjective)
*Good performance compared to competition
*Innovative regulation + moon mode
*ergonomic UI
*reasonable price

Cons:
*over rated specifications (16,000 lux and 16 hours runtime on low)
*misleading perfectly flat manufacturer runtime graph (no good for trust)
*glued head (for a claimed upgradable design, big mistake!)
* "squishy" feeling of the tailcap switch

All in one, apart the usual marketing bulls*t specs, seems a nice product, especially from a new comer :twothumbs
well in fact it's not really a new comer. These guys know how to produce flashlights for sure and I will not be surprised if DT is the OEM NITECORE manufacturer. Let's see how things evolve in the future fot these 2 companies. 2009 will be interesting


----------



## nanotech17 (Jan 3, 2009)

i think soon they will come up with different emitter in the same host such as GDP emitter,just my wild guess.
anyway nice review selfbuilt


----------



## Axion (Jan 3, 2009)

Just wanted to point out that I really like the moon mode thing. Sort of acts as a low-battery warning.


----------



## corrections operator (Jan 3, 2009)

Thanks for the quick review, Selfbuilt! I may just end up buying one, good looks, interesting output on an 18650...calling it neat just isn't giving it justice.


----------



## Splunk_Au (Jan 3, 2009)

Hi selfbuilt, are you taking the lux measurement from the exact center of the hot spot? I think this post might explain why your numbers are usually lower, seems close (9,300 and 9,250). Could you find a point where the highest is?


----------



## Weanuts (Jan 3, 2009)

Bah Humbug, xpea, 

Are you better with your specs. 

Too bad you didn,t have one, or two, specs, that is.

Congrats to DT

Keep it up DT 

And thank you for a great review selfbuilt.


----------



## Burgess (Jan 3, 2009)

to SelfBuilt --


Thank you for your time and effort.

:twothumbs


Another of your fine reviews !

:thanks::goodjob::kewlpics:
_


----------



## choaticwhisper (Jan 3, 2009)

Great review, Im sure many people were waiting for your review to make the decision to buy or not. Like others have said except for the exaggeration claims by the manufacture, It is a pretty good light.
I dont really want this one but will be looking for whats else they come up with.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 4, 2009)

Thanks for the positive comments everyone! :thanks:


DM51 said:


> This review has been eagerly awaited, and it does not disappoint - either in the very high quality of the work put into doing the review, or in the quite unusual features of the light itself.


Thanks David - I must say, I didn't expect this level of response to the review while I was away at dinner tonight! I hadn't appreciate how much interest DarkTort had generated here. 

It is certainly an auspicious beginning, although I can understand why some may feel it doesn't quite live up to its promise (i.e. 16,000 lux on Hi with flat regulation, 18 hours runtime on Lo). Of course, I don't believe they stated what battery they were using for their tests (or if they did, I missed it) ... it could have been a higher capacity unprotected cell. Unfortunately, I don't have any to test.

Regardless, I consider it a nice light as is ... I would prefer a smoother switch, though.



Splunk_Au said:


> Hi selfbuilt, are you taking the lux measurement from the exact center of the hot spot?


No, my lux readings are from the point of peak measurement, which may not be dead centre. I move the light around and try to find the absolute peak, which is what I report in my reviews. 

I'm using the inexpensive DX meter for these tests, and I've noticed mine tends to report slightly lower than the "average" results posted for other brand meters (on lights I share). But there's huge variability among meters - at the end of the day, all that you can do is compare within results from a given meter. I have verified that mine is linear across a reasonable range, so you can compare the relative results between by reviews.



Sgt. LED said:


> I can deal with the runtime not being quite what they claimed it to be but what I AM very unhappy about is that they claim 16,000 Lux and deliver 9,000. Where are my missing lumens?


Well, I don't think you are missing any actual lumens - this thing is the brightest Q5 18650 light my lightbox has seen! I suppose it's possible another light meter could report 16,000 - but that would make for a pretty wide swing. Again, in my experience, my lightmeter is typically only a little below the "average" I've seen.



worldedit said:


> Maybe the runtime is that short on low because it goes into moon mode to early. Did you measure the battery voltage after the test?


I don't think so. I don't have the data in front of me right now, but I believe the protection circuit was tripped on the protected AW cell within an hour or two after the Lo mode run dropped to that min level. In contrast, it definitely continued to run for 3+ hours at that level on the Hi run (where I manually stopped it).


----------



## Sgt. LED (Jan 4, 2009)

I shouldn't of used the word lumens.


----------



## csshih (Jan 4, 2009)

lol, sgt.

they're *everywhere*


----------



## Elizabeth88 (Jan 4, 2009)

Dear selfbuilt,

Thanks so much for taking time to do all the tests and put up the review so quickly. We ( DarkTort ) really appreciate all your comments and suggestion. We will try our best to develop new and better products in the future.

Thank you again! Thanks for all your support!

Best regards,
Elizabeth


----------



## cruisemissile (Jan 4, 2009)

xpea said:


> Very interesting light and great review as usual. To summarize:
> 
> Pros
> *high manufacturing quality
> ...


 thanks for the review. it looks like its another light to stay away from.
save your $ for the Surefire Optimus or Invictus.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 4, 2009)

I see DarkTort responded in detail to some of the points raised here in their manufacturer's thread (see their post #140)

I've updated the first post with some additional information, and some shots of the head internals (I got it open without strap wrenches, just needed more force with a cloth over the bezel ring).

DarkTort has confirmed my general observations of the light, although they still report getting 16K lux for centre throw with their light meter. :shrug: Regardless, I think the beamshots show that throw is within the same range as the JetBeam Jet-III M and Olight M20, so you should go by that for comparison purposes.



Elizabeth88 said:


> Thanks so much for taking time to do all the tests and put up the review so quickly. We ( DarkTort ) really appreciate all your comments and suggestion. We will try our best to develop new and better products in the future.


And thanks for the rapid response to the issues raised here and elsewhere Elizabeth. 



cruisemissile said:


> thanks for the review. it looks like its another light to stay away from.
> save your $ for the Surefire Optimus or Invictus.


To each his own - I certainly enjoyed testing this light. And I agree that the Optimus and Invictus look like great lights (if they ever actually ship  - we have been waiting a while ... ). Maybe Surefire will have some news at the next SHOT. :tinfoil:


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 4, 2009)

One more thing - on the issue of batteries and runtimes:

I'd like remind folks that all my runtimes are done under a cooling fan. I've noticed that if you don't use a fan, you tend to get slightly higher output and lower runtimes. Not suggesting one approach is better than the other (both cooling and not cooling have merit), but you should keep it in mind when comparing results.

Also, all batteries can be variable in output, including AW protecteds. I test all my AW cells in my JetBeam IBS lights to quantify their capacity under similar high drain situations, and I can tell you I've seen up to 20% variation in runtimes on different 18650 cells, and up to 40% variation on the smaller RCR/14500.

Anecdotally, it's actually my newer cells that seem to have the lower range of capacities. 

In any case, I do this testing to insure I pick "average" AW batteries for all my runtimes (i.e. I don't use extremes, but stick with more median values). As always, YMMV ...

Finally, if DarkTort was indeed testing a Lo mode that had half the output of mine, then I would think 18hrs is actually quite a low estimate on their part. I would expect my batteries would last a lot longer than that, if I get ~11hrs on twice the output. 

:wave:


----------



## Jay T (Jan 4, 2009)

Hmm, the runtime looks like a direct drive light. In a direct drive light are not the brightness and runtime determined by the specs of the LED? Seeing that this sample was sent out as a review sample is there a chance that this light could have a cherry picked overachiever LED?


----------



## Mdinana (Jan 4, 2009)

Sgt. LED said:


> I shouldn't of used the word lumens.



... Or used the phrase "shouldn't of" instead of "shouldn't have." :nana:

LOL

OK, enough of me playing Word-Nazi. I'm liking the specs of this light. What I'm not liking is the battery type, or the look. Why, one may ask? I don't think that the red head sink or silver bezel head are different enough from a handful of other flashlights to spend money on yet.

I get the feeling that many Chinese flashlight manufacturers are a lot like early Ford: you can have any color you want, as long as it's black (apparently with some accent colors, though). What ever happened to olive, or coyote, or something simple like red? 

This isn't a DT-specific complaint, btw. Just a clarification of why I'm not ready to drop my money on them yet.


----------



## choaticwhisper (Jan 4, 2009)

Sorry if its posted somewhere, But is that reflector solid? Aluminum? Plastic?


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 4, 2009)

Jay T said:


> Seeing that this sample was sent out as a review sample is there a chance that this light could have a cherry picked overachiever LED?


As always, that is a possibility with review samples. As Jarl also pointed out, direct-drive lights are heavily influenced by Vf (although in my limited modding experience, swaping for different Vfs seems to affect runtime to a greater degree than output). Time will tell when other members here have their samples in hand to compare output to other lights.



choaticwhisper said:


> Sorry if its posted somewhere, But is that reflector solid? Aluminum? Plastic?


It appears to be a solid piece of metal. Whether it's aluminum throughout I don't know, but it feels like it could be.


----------



## jzmtl (Jan 4, 2009)

Mdinana said:


> This isn't a DT-specific complaint, btw. Just a clarification of why I'm not ready to drop my money on them yet.



See 47's comment regard colored e01. People don't put money where their mouth is, all colored sale combined is still not even close to black sale, despite many many people say they want one before release.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 4, 2009)

jzmtl said:


> See 47's comment regard colored e01. People don't put money where their mouth is, all colored sale combined is still not even close to black sale, despite many many people say they want one before release.


That's interesting - I hadn't heard that before. Frankly, I find it a little surprising for a keychain light, since black shows up dings the most. 

Just a personal preference, but I'm a fan of dark grey natural finish myself (although it can be hard for manufacturers to consistently match the anodizing between portions).


----------



## matrixshaman (Jan 4, 2009)

xpea said:


> All in one, apart the usual marketing bulls*t specs, seems a nice product, especially from a new comer :twothumbs
> well in fact it's not really a new comer. These guys know how to produce flashlights for sure and I will not be surprised if DT is the OEM NITECORE manufacturer. Let's see how things evolve in the future fot these 2 companies. 2009 will be interesting



I just did a little research and for what it's worth DarkTort appears to be 'Shenzhen Xinhui Opto-Elcetronic CO.,Ltd' (note elcetronic misspelling is not mine - this was copied and pasted) with a different email, phone number, address and city than Nitecore. All this was gleaned from their web sites info available through 'whois' and similar lookups. I think it's more a case of how successful ideas often get copied or at least 'borrowed from' in making a new product.


----------



## Burgess (Jan 5, 2009)

Good work, *matrixshaman*

:thumbsup:

_


----------



## Robocop (Jan 5, 2009)

Great review as always and it is appreciated by us all.....

Have you been able to play around with the pill section at all? I am curious how difficult it would be to swap out the emitter. From what I remember the maker designed this light to be easily modded by the user and I am not sure if this is done by purchasing an entirely new light engine or simply changing out components on the existing light engine.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 5, 2009)

Robocop said:


> Have you been able to play around with the pill section at all? I am curious how difficult it would be to swap out the emitter. From what I remember the maker designed this light to be easily modded by the user and I am not sure if this is done by purchasing an entirely new light engine or simply changing out components on the existing light engine.


Here's what I found under the hood: 







As you can see, the emitter is easily accessed by removing the 3 screws on the cover plate. Looks like they used a good amount of thermal epoxy, but you should be able to pop out the mini-star for a DIY emitter swap pretty easily (with basic modding skills and components).






The circuit board is also easy to access should you want to. But be warned - the contact retaining plate is attached under pressure (i.e. the 3 longer screws are holding the plate in place, against the resistance of the 3 springs used to control mode switching). 

I found it a real pain to re-attach this plate, as you need to carefully tighten each screw while gently but firmly holding it all together against the springs (recall the exposed emitter dome at the other end of the pill!). When tightening the screws, it's easy for the plate to slip sideways a little - which then makes it impossible to fit back into the head, because tolerances are tight. 

Remember that the pill assembly is not screwed in - pressure is maintained by the bezel ring/lens pressing down on the reflector, which in turn presses down on the pill assembly. On the plus side, a manufacturer upgrade of the entire pill assembly (i.e the entire red aluminum section) would be child's play for anyone to swap on their own.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Jan 5, 2009)

Thank you!
Finally a shot of the emitter with the cover off. :twothumbs


----------



## I came to the light... (Jan 5, 2009)

Thanks for the review selfbuilt :thumbsup:. Looks like a very nice light, and I am very glad somebody finally got the moon mode concept right. But no regulation is a no go for me... I really hope they fix that. 

It's funny, I hadn't compared this to EdgeTac before, but now that you say it, I'm almost convinced this is another of their brand names, testing a new market. We know they wouldn't hesitate to do it, as Raidfire is our example. Besides that, my Extreme had a "squishy" forward clicky switch, and the design is similar in taste to the original NDI, but a bit more curvy like the spear. Oh, and the NDI was initially advertised as 190 lumens, almost exactly the same exaggeration factor as this flashlight's lux.


----------



## Mdinana (Jan 6, 2009)

jzmtl said:


> See 47's comment regard colored e01. People don't put money where their mouth is, all colored sale combined is still not even close to black sale, despite many many people say they want one before release.


 
I totally agree. However, it'd be nice to at least SEE the option. Personally, I have a red and blue MiniMag, and a red Mag 3D. A grey E1l. I don't personally like the e01, but.... if I bought one, it'd be in a color.

I mean, at the very least, if it's going to be "tacticool" at least offer a few different tactical colors! Not every place on the planet allows black to be good. Olive, coyote, or "real" camo and not some "hunter" version. (I never understand why hunters need camo, but that's a whole other topic) Geez, I'd love a good white light for the snow!


----------



## Sgt. LED (Jan 6, 2009)

*Hello!*

I am not worthy of a review thread so here are my observations.

Selfbuilt I hope you don't mind me sticking this on here, if you do just let me know and I will remove it ASAP! No problem.

This light is smaller than I expected it to be, _almost_ in SF E2DL territory. Light arrived in a neat box, well lubed and has great O-rings with spares and an OK lanyard. It went into the shower earlier and had no leakage at all. None of the threads are SF compatible in case you were wondering. The thick HA is *very* lightly textured and flawless. The bezel is really thick, as is the battery tube, and tailcap rim! The light must be very strong! There is NO battery rattle present. The bezel does not have the goofy text saying 18650 only on it, instead it has a nice simple company logo on it. The crennelations are not sharp or needlessly long. The HI/LOW switching is smooth and thanks to the springy 3 prong mechanism it should last a lifetime. Actually the entire head is a near perfect execution! The lanyard holes in the tailcap are placed deep enough from the rim that they should not wear thru anytime soon.

The tailcap has a very long spring in it and the butt end of the body tube past the battery zone is quite long too. You could shorten the tube and the spring both and make this light almost a half inch shorter. I am clueless as to why this was done. Perhaps Dark Tort can enlighten me later?





The switch is not so great, and the switch retaining ring's plastic portion is very weak and soft plastic. I took the retaining ring out twice and there is some visible deformation already. I had to take my fingernail and straighten them out so I could get it back together. This *needs* attention *NOW* as it is the only weak point in the whole light. Now if you don't fully disassemble your new light then it may never be an issue but I am a curious CPF'er and have to take it all apart as soon as it arrived. I disliked the switch's lack of feedback that it has indeed clicked on. The momentary is fine but if you want to click it on don't go wimpy on it, punch it in with authority and it works great. I bet a McClicky will fit in here with a little rigging and fix most everything till Dark Tort has a new one ready! 

The spill is bright and the throw is good too. Not quite M60 throw but not that far off from it either! Cree ring is almost totally gone from this sample. The strobe is so out of the way I will quickly forget it is even there, awesome! There is no flicker on high or low. It get's warm on high but never really gets hot thanks to the excellent design. I have nothing to measure lux. I have done no runtime tests yet either. Looking forward to the lower low from the new module. Tint is cool.


----------



## madi05 (Jan 6, 2009)

i assume this is to compare to the derelight dbs right? so have u had one of these and how do u think it compares or something else similar like the olight m20 or jet m?

thanks for your time 
madi05


----------



## HitecDrftr (Jan 6, 2009)

Very nice review selfbuilt. :bow:

What can this thing do in the dark? (Any outdoor beamshots at close, medium, & long ranges against your most relevant contenders?)

Don't be afraid to chime in sarge, we're all friends here...

-Hitec-


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 7, 2009)

*Re: Hello!*



Sgt. LED said:


> Selfbuilt I hope you don't mind me sticking this on here, if you do just let me know and I will remove it ASAP! No problem. ...
> The switch is not so great, and the switch retaining ring's plastic portion is very weak and soft plastic. I took the retaining ring out twice and there is some visible deformation already. I had to take my fingernail and straighten them out so I could get it back together. This *needs* attention *NOW* as it is the only weak point in the whole light.


No problem Sarge - the more the merrier here! 

I agree with your assessment entirely, especially concerning the switch. I had to give them the benefit of doubt, since mine may have been an anomaly, but it seems now like everyone else has the same issue with the tactile feel. And I agree that the plastic retaining ring is a no-no (which is why I mentioned it in my review as well). Hopefully they will soon replace this lower quality part, since it is not in keeping the other high quality components (especially the head/pill).



madi05 said:


> i assume this is to compare to the derelight dbs right? so have u had one of these and how do u think it compares or something else similar like the olight m20 or jet m?


It doesn't really compare to the DBS (which is a heavy throw light), but it is comparable in beam characteristics to the M20 and Jet-III M. Throw is about the same as those two lights, but I find my beam is smoother with less rings up close. Spill also seems marginally brighter on my DT-E1.0. Of course, the DT-E1.0 is 18650-only ... 



HitecDrftr said:


> What can this thing do in the dark? (Any outdoor beamshots at close, medium, & long ranges against your most relevant contenders?)


Hmm, well, I'm in the middle of snow storm right now, so not sure what I'll be able to photograph outdoors.  I'll try to get some medium-range back yard shots soon, but I don't think you'll see much of a difference to the Jet-III M or Olight M20 - the beam is pretty similar.


----------



## kenL (Jan 7, 2009)

Is this light brighter than the eagle tac P10C2 and fenix TK11?


----------



## Sgt. LED (Jan 7, 2009)




----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 7, 2009)

kenL said:


> Is this light brighter than the eagle tac P10C2 and fenix TK11?


I don't have either light to compare directly, but I would expect them to be in the same range. All these high-end lights are driven pretty maximally, so any difference in overall output would likely be pretty slight.


----------



## Elizabeth88 (Jan 8, 2009)

*Re: Hello!*

Dear All,

As to the issue of the plastic retaining ring, please see our reply in the CPF MarketPlace since I can not post detailed product information here.

Thanks for your understanding!

Best regards,
Elizabeth



selfbuilt said:


> No problem Sarge - the more the merrier here!
> 
> I agree with your assessment entirely, especially concerning the switch. I had to give them the benefit of doubt, since mine may have been an anomaly, but it seems now like everyone else has the same issue with the tactile feel. And I agree that the plastic retaining ring is a no-no (which is why I mentioned it in my review as well). Hopefully they will soon replace this lower quality part, since it is not in keeping the other high quality components (especially the head/pill).
> 
> ...


----------



## liquidsix (Jan 8, 2009)

*Re: Hello!*



Sgt. LED said:


> I bet a McClicky will fit in here with a little rigging and fix most everything till Dark Tort has a new one ready!



Let us know how that goes if you try it.


----------



## xpea (Jan 11, 2009)

well after long hesitation, I will finally not buy this light now. many things annoy me :
- retaining ring
- switch
- strobe mode
- regulation

I will like also to see quickly updated pill/bezel/emitter to prove the modular concept (aka Dereelight)

But the most important is that they fix the ring and switch in a coming batch + offer/sell the improved parts to the early customers. Reading Darktort answers in the marketplace it's not very clear they plan to fix the E1.0. They are always talking about a fix in a "future product". If they want to gain the respect of this community, they must find a solution for the current model, even if it's by an upgrade that we must pay for. If they do it, I will be extremely happy to get one as it seems a very good product


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 12, 2009)

FYI, I see Elizabeth has just posted in their CPFMP thread here that they have replaced the clicky switch for the DT-E1.0. The new design will apparently be included from now on with all shipping lights. 

Hopefully that should improve the feel. :wave:


----------



## 4sevens (Jan 12, 2009)

selfbuilt said:


> FYI, I see Elizabeth has just posted in their CPFMP thread here that they have replaced the clicky switch for the DT-E1.0. The new design will apparently be included from now on with all shipping lights.
> 
> Hopefully that should improve the feel. :wave:


Those who want to check out the DT-E1.0 and will be at the shot show, just come by booth #701 or come to one of the get-togethers


----------



## Elizabeth88 (Jan 12, 2009)

Thanks, selfbuilt, :kiss:!



selfbuilt said:


> FYI, I see Elizabeth has just posted in their CPFMP thread here that they have replaced the clicky switch for the DT-E1.0. The new design will apparently be included from now on with all shipping lights.
> 
> Hopefully that should improve the feel. :wave:


----------



## Sgt. LED (Jan 12, 2009)

I hope I can land the new switch and make this light a TOTAL winner.


----------



## xpea (Jan 13, 2009)

selfbuilt said:


> FYI, I see Elizabeth has just posted in their CPFMP thread here that they have replaced the clicky switch for the DT-E1.0. The new design will apparently be included from now on with all shipping lights.
> 
> Hopefully that should improve the feel. :wave:


very good news :twothumbs
I hope they have chosen a reliable one as forward clickies are subject to high failure rate.

Only the ring and I will buy one !

DT seems to be very responsive, kudos to them. This start is promising :goodjob:


----------



## AardvarkSagus (Jan 13, 2009)

That is fantastic news! This light get's better fast.


----------



## cheetokhan (Jan 14, 2009)

4sevens said:


> Those who want to check out the DT-E1.0 and will be at the shot show, just come by booth #701 or come to one of the get-togethers



Can we expect to see Darktort-store.com joining the 4sevens family?


----------



## 4sevens (Jan 14, 2009)

cheetokhan said:


> Can we expect to see Darktort-store.com joining the 4sevens family?


Possible. Unofficially, DT is line to test experimental techniques. After they've been refined, they'll move to NiteCore for mass consumption


----------



## lightmyway (Jan 14, 2009)

4sevens said:


> Possible. Unofficially, DT is line to test experimental techniques. After they've been refined, they'll move to NiteCore for mass consumption


 Seems that makes those of us who purchased early are Beta Testers,and perhaps that why Darktort encouraged feedback,and were so fast to implement changes.
Its a great light which is fast approaching perfection.
Myself i would like to see them offer a modular system,eg.choice of reflectors, pills, switches which they may very well have in the planning of the big picture.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 14, 2009)

4sevens said:


> Possible. Unofficially, DT is line to test experimental techniques. After they've been refined, they'll move to NiteCore for mass consumption


Interesting ... thanks for the heads-up David. That would certainly help explain the similarities in packaging and presentation that I noticed.


----------



## xpea (Jan 15, 2009)

4sevens said:


> Possible. Unofficially, DT is line to test experimental techniques. After they've been refined, they'll move to NiteCore for mass consumption


Finally we see the light :candle: and what a bomb !

First, it confirms that DT is the OEM manufacturer of Nitecore and maybe they are in fact the same company / share same owner. 

Second, it's nice to see a brand trying to improve state of art and reacting so quickly at customers feedback, but at same time, it means that customers are beta testers ! not sure that this status deserves positively the brand and the products image oo: By the other side, Nitecore is the clear winner here as it means that their new technologies/ideas are well tested (by DT) before puting into market.


Finally, I don't know what to think about that, except that it may be very disturbing for the customer... :thinking:


----------



## toby_pra (Jan 15, 2009)

Very nice Review!


----------



## Art Vandelay (Jan 19, 2009)

I assumed that several of those companies were related in some way. I'm still not sure if they are different like different brands of soap from the same company, or if they are more like Quentin Tarantino's movies. He starts a new Corporation for each movie. I don't see anything wrong with it. We will probably get to see more variety in the designs they release this way. We will also probably get higher quality lights if each new brand does not have to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## KrisiaMae (Jun 18, 2009)

Aluminum is a solid piece of metal. 

Simulation pret


----------

