# Why do I wanna buy a Maxabeam?



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 7, 2007)

They are way expensive and inpratical for me. Why do I still wanna buy one? The urge has been here to buy one for 3 months and it wont go away, help!

I want the MBPKG A, with the Li-Ion battery and charger. $2495 AFTER SHOT discount (13%) 

The electronic focus rules! (There I go again!)


----------



## Tightgroup (Mar 7, 2007)

It's a cool light, picked one up for a buddy 3 or 4 years ago and paid 1895.00 for it factory direct. He doesn't use it very often, but it is an awesome lightsaber, if not somewhat heavy because of the battery pack. I won't try to talk you out of it, since I already know your a certified light addict, but for 2500.00 you can buy multiple other HID lights that come close to it, or maybe exceed it in brightness, although without the electronic focus, which is very cool. So, that being said, go ahead, you know you want it! 

Todd


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 7, 2007)

Thanks Todd, I definatley wont pull the trigger, for the price is a bit much! I have a 75W Barn Burner upgrade on the way for my XeVision, so that will quench my thirst for lumens..... :rock:


----------



## IsaacHayes (Mar 7, 2007)

Just get a 2.55" AR coated aspherical and an overdriven cree xre and be happy with that! Well, at least that's what I'm doing  hehe At least you have your BB which is pretty extreme!


----------



## cy (Mar 7, 2007)

if you want POWER... check out Larry's tank light. fairly reasonably priced, but sure looks like you gotta have room to play.


----------



## tdurand (Mar 8, 2007)

PSM-
The Maxabeam has been my grail light for years. Ever since seeing it in Jurassic Park I've oogled over it but could never pull the trigger. I was crushed to finally hunt the name and manufacturer down (crappy search engines back then) only to find out that they went for $2500-$4500 fully loaded. That's one of the main reasons I got in on the Xeray 50W and later the BB group buy. I thought that was going to be enough.....and you know what? It was! What am I freeeeaking crazy trying to justify purchasing one of those? All it's gonna do is attract more of Wisconsin's State bird, the Mosquito, faster than anybody else's light. Like I'm really going to need that much light for that much money when I'm lucky if I walk in the woods twice a year. Pssh yeah, right! But, if you get one, and you hunt and fish and trap crocs and search for Megalodon teeth (all in the middle of the blackest night mind you), then I say go for it. I'd totally understand :laughing:

Luckily my buddy has one and I've seen the electric zoom and held that thing in my hands. I know what you mean. Again if you get one I'd totally understand. Wait til the BB arrives, then you can question yourself again.

T


----------



## Ra (Mar 8, 2007)

Let me think for a moment...


Maxabeam has about one third of the lumens output of (automotive-) HID !
It has poor efficiency !

So why indeed would you want one ?? 

Let me tell you why:

With that awesome, laserlike beam that throws at least 1.5 miles, it still has that WOW !! factor.

I've read comments of some CPF-members, saying that when they were with friends, and showed the performance of Maxabeam next to 35watt or even 50watt HID, they always found the MB to be more impressive! Dispite its shortcomming in lumens-output!

Even with a 9inch reflector, HID only reaches little over half the throw of MB !

Maxabeam is a must have for throw-lovers !


Regards,

Ra.


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 8, 2007)

Ra, youre not helping matters here..... :laughing: 

I played with one at SHOT, thats why I want one!


----------



## Hallis (Mar 8, 2007)

Because you have to have all the cool toys. All the newest things. Just like Xbox 360's. PS3's. People are sometimes willing to pay ANY price just to get one regardless of weather or not it makes financial sense. 

*looks at his long line of little lights in front of his keyboard*

When it really comes down to it i really only need 3-4 flashlights total. a large spot light, a small LED to carry, and maybe a large LED light and a hotwire inbetween for use around the house. Everything else is pure self-indilgence. MMMMMM,, i love lights. 


Shane


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 8, 2007)

I have been in contact with the Chinese company that supplied Solomon with the Maxabeam clone 2 years ago, because I am not going to pay that ridiculous amount for a Maxabeam, with what will amount to a pretty limited use. 

They claim to have made many quality improvements since that "Solomon" model that used 10 D-cell NiMH in a shoulder belt pack. The sample price of a single unit is pretty reasonable, and it now has the Li-Ion setup. I may bite the bullet and get one. They also sell spare bulbs for $40 and battery for $150.

I know it is not the quality of Maxabeam, but those that had the 2 year old model claim the beam is nearly the same. It does not have the motorized focus, but I could live without that for the cost savings. 

This may be a good alternative for those that want to have the beam without losing your wallet.


----------



## ShortArc (Mar 8, 2007)

PSM,
CPF member Andreas may still have one or two Maxabeam packages in slightly used shape for sale. I would PM him and ask. I know the lights had Gen 3 boards. 
Willem.


----------



## Lurveleven (Mar 8, 2007)

LuxLuthor, the Maxabeam clone is only rated 150 lux at 90 m on the highest setting, that equals 1.2 Million candlepower. And on normal setting it is rated 650.000 candlepower. The real Maxabeam is rated 7.5 Million candlepower.

Sigbjoern


----------



## cmacclel (Mar 8, 2007)

Lurveleven said:


> LuxLuthor, the Maxabeam clone is only rated 150 lux at 90 m on the highest setting, that equals 1.2 Million candlepower. And on normal setting it is rated 650.000 candlepower. The real Maxabeam is rated 7.5 Million candlepower.
> 
> Sigbjoern



Rated power and actual power is sometimes very different. I thought the SuperNova was 90% of the Maxabeam to people that have compared them.

Mac


----------



## Sway (Mar 8, 2007)

PoliceScannerMan said:


> They are way expensive and inpratical for me. Why do I still wanna buy one? The urge has been here to buy one for 3 months and it wont go away, help!



 This sound just like me talking to myself  and I have been wanting one ever since I wandered into this place "eyes roll up and look at Aug 2003" 

I've had the opportunity to take one for a test drive _and it's one cool light no doubt_, I could probably swing one now but if I did, I would go for the basic light with a lighter cord and use my own battery pack to save some bucks.

Eh' I really don't need or want one anymore, really I don’t :thinking: 

Dang You!
:devil:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 8, 2007)

Lurveleven said:


> LuxLuthor, the Maxabeam clone is only rated 150 lux at 90 m on the highest setting, that equals 1.2 Million candlepower. And on normal setting it is rated 650.000 candlepower. The real Maxabeam is rated 7.5 Million candlepower.
> 
> Sigbjoern



As Mac said, I'm only going by what people said who have used both. It cannot be the case if multiple people said things like it being 90% of the MaxaBeam's output that it is 1/6th as strong as your post implies. It costs 1/4th - 1/5th of the MaxaBeam.


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 8, 2007)

I have a feeling by time this thread is over, someone will have bought a Maxabeam. 
(Not me)


----------



## Patriot (Mar 8, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> I have been in contact with the Chinese company that supplied Solomon with the Maxabeam clone 2 years ago, because I am not going to pay that ridiculous amount for a Maxabeam, with what will amount to a pretty limited use.
> 
> They claim to have made many quality improvements since that "Solomon" model that used 10 D-cell NiMH in a shoulder belt pack. The sample price of a single unit is pretty reasonable, and it now has the Li-Ion setup. I may bite the bullet and get one. They also sell spare bulbs for $40 and battery for $150.
> 
> ...


 
I think this is a great deal. For me, the extra 10% of performance that you get out of the Maxabeam doesn't justify its quadruple size price tag. If I was going to spend $2500 on a "superthrower," I'd purchase the components to build a MaxaBlaster and pay Ra for his expertise with what was left over.


----------



## chellyc (Mar 8, 2007)

For those interested in the clone (Supernova), there's one on sale for $500 in b/s/t.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/156283

Chelly


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 8, 2007)

chellyc said:


> For those interested in the clone (Supernova), there's one on sale for $500 in b/s/t.
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/156283
> 
> Chelly



Yeah, I saw that....but the part about him scotch taping the bulb holder makes me nervous, as well as delivery from Australia for something that heavy.

The Chinese clone accepts PayPal, ships with EMS, has insurance for shipping, supposedly newer model with improvements, and not much more than his sale price.


----------



## lasercrazy (Mar 8, 2007)

That tape is going to burn off and ruin the reflector and maybe even the bulb.


----------



## That_Guy (Mar 8, 2007)

The question of how the Supernova compares to the Maxabeam is something that has been puzzling me for quite some time. On one hand we have some comparisons showing the SN coming very close to the MB and on the other we have some comparisons showing quite the opposite and the published specs which line up quite closely to these unfavourable comparisons.

On normal power the MB is rated at 4.2 million candlepower (the more commonly cited 6 mcp figure is for the 16 second max time limited boost function). The newest MB is rated at 7.5 mcp boost and 4.5 mcp on normal. If the SN truly is close to the MB it should produce close to 4 mcp on normal. However as Lurveleven has said the published SN specs translate to only 650 000 cp on normal and 1.2 mcp on boost. The unfavourable comparisons put the SN candlepower at less than 1 mil which is close to the published SN specs.



In the near MB performance camp (>4 mcp) we have:

This review by Chris M.where he said it was only slightly worse than the MB (and had pictures, but they’re down).

An approximate cp reading from 4sevens in this thread where he got a reading of 4.5 mcp which is slightly above a MB although the reading is very approximate, probably +-30% at least, but even assuming the worst it is still a lot high than 1 mil cp.



And in the crap performance camp (<1 mcp) we have:

This post by ddaadd where the Costco HID (at most 1.5 mcp, but likely less than 1) outthrows the SN. There are also some pictures in this post by ddaadd which clearly show the Costco HID out throwing the SN.

This post by Lunarmodule where the SN performs no better than the Blitz (at most 1 mcp, likely less than 600 000 cp if operating off a SLA battery in stock form).

And finally these pictures by cmacclel which don’t show the SN throwing much, if at all further than the 50W XeRay (at most 500 000 cp).



To be honest I don’t know what to believe. The only explanation I can think of is that there is some very significant unit to unit variation in which case it is a real gamble when buying a SN unless the unit can be tested before hand.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 9, 2007)

That_Guy said:


> The question of how the Supernova compares to the Maxabeam is something that has been puzzling me for quite some time. On one hand we have some comparisons showing the SN coming very close to the MB and on the other we have some comparisons showing quite the opposite and the published specs which line up quite closely to these unfavourable comparisons.
> 
> On normal power the MB is rated at 4.2 million candlepower (the more commonly cited 6 mcp figure is for the 16 second max time limited boost function). The newest MB is rated at 7.5 mcp boost and 4.5 mcp on normal. If the SN truly is close to the MB it should produce close to 4 mcp on normal. However as Lurveleven has said the published SN specs translate to only 650 000 cp on normal and 1.2 mcp on boost. The unfavourable comparisons put the SN candlepower at less than 1 mil which is close to the published SN specs.
> 
> ...



From reading all the people who have seen this, including those comparing it side by side with the Maxabeam, it is obvious that Lurveleven is wrong in his assumptions about the SN output, based only on some posted numbers. That is why the Maxabeam people are upset...for 1/5th the price, you get damn near the same light output.

Dude, you TOTALLY misrepresented every one of these examples to paint the most negative interpretation, even to the point of representing exactly the opposite of what they say and show. 

Your characterization is not at all the impression that ChrisM leaves you with when you read his post. I spoke with 4Sevens by phone, and he raves about it, and also said it was very close to a Maxabeam in output.

If you read the thread ddaadd's unit was sold for very cheap because it was known to be defective. They said the boost didn't work, the ballast may not be working, and it became clear that his battery pack has bad cells. Read the glowing reviews he still gives it, and his shots are still very impressive even with a defective light. Read his picture comments...but it is pretty obvious with him saying it is a 50W bulb, and not knowing what is going on with his batteries that he was not the brightest bulb on the tree about this light.

You completely mischaracterized Lunarmodule's post, and he is only informally using the Blitz to compare the effect of the SN...not an objective lumen measurement as you suggest. He also raves about it like crazy, even wanting to buy a 2nd one.

Mac's pictures show its performance exactly as it should look at that distance. If you read other comments from Mac, he makes it clear how amazing the light is.

Anyway, I do understand people wanting to bash this light because it is yet another Chinese clone...and clearly it does not have the machining and features of the MaxaBeam....but what you just posted was disgusting because it misrepresents everyone you quoted. People can read for themselves.


----------



## That_Guy (Mar 9, 2007)

I don't know what it is about the SN that gets people so worked up when I dare suggest that maybe it isn't as close to the MB as some people think. But seriously did you even READ my post?

If you bothered to read my post you would see that I'm using Chris M. and 4sevens as examples of Supernova owners who have lights which ARE close to the MB.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are some examples where the SN is close to the MB and others where it isn't and the difficulty that I have explaining this discrepancy.

When I'm comparing the performance of the SN to the MB I'm only talking about THROW (candlepower), not lumens and not how impressed or amazed the owners are with the light.

ddaadd's (and Lunarmodule's) units were both part of the "defective" batch but as far as I know the only problem was with the battery packs. This would account for some of the poor performance, but not all and it doesn't explain Mac's apparently poor performance (which as far as I know was bought in the original GB).

ddaadd's pictures CLEARLY show performance (throw) significantly less than that of the Costco HID. I don't care how great he thinks it is it doesn't change the fact that when it comes to throw it performs worse than the Costco HID.

Regarding Mac's pictures, again I don't care how amazing he thinks it is. And how do you know exactly what the SN should look at that distance? Do you really think the SN is "meant" to be no brighter than the 50W XeRay? The fact is it should be lighting up the target much brighter than everything else in that shootout, producing a bright, washed out over exposed hot spot. If anything it's underexposed.

If I get some more time later I'll crop out bits of both ddaadd's and cmacclel's pictures to show what I mean.


----------



## Ra (Mar 9, 2007)

If you compare lights on candlepower, I need to see side by side beamshots to be convinced by the poster.

The comparishon-pictures, taken by Ddaadd clearly show a NOT PROPERLY COLLIMATED OR FOCUSED SuperNova !!

Ofcource the HID blows away the SuperNova on lumens-output, but thats not the isuue here !!

Compared to Maxabeam, SuperNova is cheaper because they designed a cheaper body, with cheaper electronics, and manual focus instead of electronic focus. But where it counts: Reflector-quality, electronic-performance, lamptype. They are about the same, so my beleve is, that, if collimated properly, the SN would give about the same performance as MB does !!

And that means a throw of at least 1.5, maybe close to 2 times the throw of the big HID spotlights !!

Even beamshots don't always tell the tale, but they shure are more reliable then someones opinion about the throw of a light !!



Regards,

Ra.


----------



## Ra (Mar 9, 2007)

PoliceScannerMan said:


> Ra, youre not helping matters here..... :laughing:
> 
> I played with one at SHOT, thats why I want one!




Sorry PSM,, just being honest...


Regards,

Ra.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Mar 9, 2007)

Is there still an advantage this light has over high power HID's? In those pictures posted the Costco looks to be MUCH brighter than the Supernova, and looks like it has more throw as well, which is why people buy the Maxabeam/SN...right?

Is the only reason people buy this light because of the allure behind it, and how it was the real cream of the crop before HID existed?


----------



## That_Guy (Mar 9, 2007)

adirondackdestroyer said:


> Is there still an advantage this light has over high power HID's? In those pictures posted the Costco looks to be MUCH brighter than the Supernova, and looks like it has more throw as well, which is why people buy the Maxabeam/SN...right?



That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Standard HIDs produce much more light, but the MB/SN throw much further which is what makes them so alluring. Problem is that, in some cases at least, the SN throws _less_ far than standard HIDs which is the whole point of getting one in the first place. The ONLY point in getting a MB/SN is the extreme throw, without that they're nothing.


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 9, 2007)

Ra said:


> Sorry PSM,, just being honest...
> 
> 
> Regards,
> ...


I know, hence the: :laughing:


----------



## Ra (Mar 9, 2007)

That_Guy said:


> Problem is that, in some cases at least, the SN throws _less_ far than standard HIDs which is the whole point of getting one in the first place. The ONLY point in getting a MB/SN is the extreme throw, without that they're nothing.



I'm not shure about Supernova, but know for a fact that Maxabeam has a X-and Y- mechanical focus mechanism. (along with the electronic Z-focus)
I cannot beleve that SN would not have such a mechanism!

This X- and Y focus is absolutely a must for spotlights with an arc-size that small !! (0.15 square mm !)

So IMO, if they do not throw the way they should, they simply need to be collimated !!

With Maxabeam, this works perfectly: The arc can be exactly centered in the reflector (X- and Y focus) And the electronic Z-focus has a electronic memory that can be user-set, so the focus always exactly stops at the best spot possible!!



Regards,

Ra.


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 9, 2007)

All I know is that at the SHOT show in Orlando this year, the roof in the place was blck in color and 30-40 feet approx off the ground. 

When I tightened the focus all the way to the narrowest beam, the spot on the 30-40 foot roof was about the size of a tennis ball! :rock:


----------



## Patriot (Mar 9, 2007)

PoliceScannerMan said:


> All I know is that at the SHOT show in Orlando this year, the roof in the place was blck in color and 30-40 feet approx off the ground.
> 
> When I tightened the focus all the way to the narrowest beam, the spot on the 30-40 foot roof was about the size of a tennis ball! :rock:


 
Wow! I didn't realize that the beam spot could be smaller in diameter than the diameter of the reflector. A tennis ball is really small. Must just be a result of the focus setting.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 9, 2007)

That_Guy said:


> I don't know what it is about the SN that gets people so worked up when I dare suggest that maybe it isn't as close to the MB as some people think. But seriously did you even READ my post?
> 
> If you bothered to read my post you would see that I'm using Chris M. and 4sevens as examples of Supernova owners who have lights which ARE close to the MB.
> 
> ...



Yes I read your post. My "getting worked up" in part is from you throwing out "it (SN) isn't as close to the MB as some people think," which is not at all how those who have used the SN talk about it. They rave about it...even side by side with the MB, claim it to be almost the same performance for 1/5th the price.

But my main objection is how you totally mischaracterized the people you quoted/linked. It started with your first comment: _*"This review by Chris M. where he said it was only slightly worse than the MB."*_ Well, that is not at all the summary or level of enthusiasm that his post conveys. He does not describe it as "only slightly worse than the MB," rather he raves about it. 



Chris M. said:


> Performance wise, both have that nice white Xenon light, just a little discolouration in the lower portion of the SN`s beam that you can only notice at the wide focus, and nothing untoward. Brightness is close, but the SN is just less than the MB on medium power. In boost mode, the SN beats the MB on medium but is less than the MB`s full power....*All in all I say this thing is well worth the asking price, to the point of being a bit of a complete bargain*, despite the GB£100 customs fee I got hit with. If you can live with the belt battery (or find a way around it) and don`t mind the manual controls,* it still offers near-MaxaBeam performance without the near-bankruptcy price tag*. A great introduction into portable short-arc Xenon lighting.


I could do the same with each of your quotes....but to raise questions or suggest inconsistency with the SN performance--by plucking out the two examples of the known defective units that were held back, & then sold for a cheap $200-300 sales price is intentionally misleading. _None of them knows for sure if the only problem was related to batteries as you suggest. There is also a question of a ballast problem...but in any case, using these defective SN examples for any kind of comparison is ludicrous._

With regards to Mac's images, I don't see a comparison shot from another light that is brighter at the hotspot. He does not have any shots that show a really far distance where the MB/SN both excel. 

You can check out posts #32 & 33 on his recent sale of it here to get some typical comments from him and 4Sevens as owners. The original Solomon shots from his GB are in this thread, and no one has ever disputed their accurate representation of what the SN can do.

Obviously for the extra money of the MB, you are getting a whole other level of manufacturing quality, features, and support from a USA company. My only point about these SN, and why eventually I will probably get one of their newer Li-Ion models with PayPal (which gives me the buyer protection) is I realize the small, laser-like hotspot is just not that practical for general use to justify the high MB expense.

If it is not a light I am going to use as much as my Barn Burner, then I don't see the point in paying $2500+ to have it mostly become a shelf queen...especially when this SN is available to give nearly the same beam output/throw. I can live without the battery driven focus.

For those that have the extra scratch, or want the best quality and will be using it a lot, then the MaxaBeam is yours to buy.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 9, 2007)

Patriot36 said:


> Wow! I didn't realize that the beam spot could be smaller in diameter than the diameter of the reflector. I tennis ball is really small. Must just be a result of the focus setting.



It's not. He is characterizing the size from where he is standing that it looks like the size of a tennis ball. If you actually got out a ruler and measured the beam on the roof, it would obviously be larger than a tennis ball. But these lights have that "laser-like" effect which gives both their appeal, and limited usefulness.


----------



## That_Guy (Mar 9, 2007)

As I said before, I don't care about peoples opinions on the light. I don't care how great they think it is, how much they rave about it or how enthusiastic they are. I only care about objective throw comparisons.

Chris M. did say the SN is slightly worse than the MB:
"Brightness is close, but the SN is just less than the MB on medium power. In boost mode, the SN beats the MB on medium but is less than the MB`s full power."

This isn't meant to be a bad thing, it's a good thing! It's an example of where the SN is close to the MB and is well worth its 1/5th purchase price.

Again I don't care about Mac's or 4sevens subjective comments, although 4sevens did make one objective comment:
"I've got one of these too and I have to say there is not another light that throws as much as this bad boy! I've seen it side by side with a maxabeam and they are pretty much the same."
So 4sevens is another example of someone who has got a "good" SN.

If you want I can leave out ddaadd's and Lunarmodule's "defective" units because I still have Mac's. I've cropped out the centre of both the SN and 50W XeRay pictures to compare the throw. An animated GIF would have been nice, but I'm too lazy to find out how to make one.

SN:





XeRay 50W:





I don't know about you but it looks to me that the 50W XeRay gives the SN a thorough :whoopin:

Solomon's pictures are irrelevant, with nothing to compare it to it could very well be no brighter than a Maglite with long exposure.

Again the point I'm trying to make is that _some_ SNs are great and close to the MB in performance while _some others_ are clearly not which can only mean there is some serious unit to unit variation.

My view about all this? I want a MB, but only because of its mega throw. I couldn't care less what a light is called or who makes it, only how it performs. If I could find a SN with performance guaranteed to within 90% of a MB I would buy one right now, but I can't. With all these poor performing SNs floating around buying one is too risky unless I can test it first. But if I ever do find a SN with near MB performance I'll buy it in a heartbeat.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 9, 2007)

That_Guy said:


> As I said before, *I don't care about peoples opinions on the light. I don't care how great they think it is, how much they rave about it or how enthusiastic they are. I only care about objective throw comparisons.*


B.S. That's exactly why in your first post you quoted all the posts that did not have objective throw comparisons, but rather were an assortment of opinions, and then picked two known defective lights to try and make your case.



That_Guy said:


> Chris M. did say the SN is slightly worse than the MB:
> "Brightness is close, but the SN is just less than the MB on medium power. In boost mode, the SN beats the MB on medium but is less than the MB`s full power."
> 
> This isn't meant to be a bad thing, it's a good thing! It's an example of where the SN is close to the MB and is well worth its 1/5th purchase price.


Again, he did not use the words "slightly worse" as you did...but there is nothing objective in his post. His images are gone, so why are you violating your first rule that I highlighted above in blue?



That_Guy said:


> Again I don't care about Mac's or 4sevens subjective comments, although 4sevens did make one objective comment:
> "I've got one of these too and I have to say there is not another light that throws as much as this bad boy! I've seen it side by side with a maxabeam and they are pretty much the same."
> So 4sevens is another example of someone who has got a "good" SN.


That was *not *an objective comment from 4Sevens. It was a subjective measurement with distances that varied in his memory of what was done. Anyone using a Meterman LM631 light meter knows how notoriously inaccurate they are depending on ambient conditions, placement position in the hotspot, calibration of the meter, charge level of the light's batteries, light's focus, etc. etc.

Please decide if you want objective facts or subjective opinions...then stick to it. In any case there were no photographs in 4sevens opinions, and assuming his memory was correct, there were no controls to make it reliable.



That_Guy said:


> If you want I can leave out ddaadd's and Lunarmodule's "defective" units because I still have Mac's. I've cropped out the centre of both the SN and 50W XeRay pictures to compare the throw. An animated GIF would have been nice, but I'm too lazy to find out how to make one.


You still think you should be including known defective lights? You say it like a part of your case thinks they should still be considered. ROFL!!!



That_Guy said:


> SN:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First of all on Mac's images, there is a difference between how a larger amount of light affects the CCD recording surface of a digital camera than a smaller spot of light. Different camera CCD surfaces are also more/less sensitive to different spectrums of light. It's not like using emulsion film. 

Then there is the whole issue of dust and particulate matter capturing more total light from the wider XeRay beam, and appearing to the camera that it is recording what is at the tree. In reality, some of the air particles are "falsely reflecting" surrounding light and giving the illusion of the tree looking brighter.

To get a really objective image for this purpose, you would need to take the camera up very close to the tree to remove the dust reflection issue which is giving significant distortion of a target that far away.

The ONLY real objective comparison should be done with beam shots of the SN next to the MB, or taken separately of the same target at the same time of night & with the same camera settings. Then the camera would have the same light color, beam size, same level of dust reflection, and would have the same result on a digital camera's CCD capturing surface. That was not done here. Drawing any conclusions as you have done from Mac's images is preposterous.



That_Guy said:


> Solomon's pictures are irrelevant, with nothing to compare it to it could very well be no brighter than a Maglite with long exposure.


They are relevant in so far as other people who got the light have confirmed that his representation is accurate to their experience. I have seen no posts from any recipients of the Group Buy (other than the known defective units) who said that he misrepresented this light with his images.



That_Guy said:


> Again the point I'm trying to make is that _some_ SNs are great and close to the MB in performance while _some others_ are clearly not which can only mean there is some serious unit to unit variation.
> 
> My view about all this? I want a MB, but only because of its mega throw. I couldn't care less what a light is called or who makes it, only how it performs. If I could find a SN with performance guaranteed to within 90% of a MB I would buy one right now, but I can't. With all these poor performing SNs floating around buying one is too risky unless I can test it first. But if I ever do find a SN with near MB performance I'll buy it in a heartbeat.


I am not aware of any SN's that are in your make believe category of "*with all these poor performing SNs floating around*" other than the known defective ones which are truly irrelevant in this discussion. Where are you getting your facts of "all these...floating around" ???

I really don't care if you buy a MB or a SN. I just care that you are totally misrepresenting facts and opinions about the beam quality of all the SN's that I have seen discussed.

If you are going to use objective data, then do it...but so far you have not presented anything that makes your case.


----------



## Sway (Mar 9, 2007)

That_Guy said:


> My view about all this? I want a MB, but only because of its mega throw. I couldn't care less what a light is called or who makes it, only how it performs. If I could find a SN with performance guaranteed to within 90% of a MB I would buy one right now, but I can't. With all these poor performing SNs floating around buying one is too risky unless I can test it first. But if I ever do find a SN with near MB performance I'll buy it in a heartbeat.



I have had these two pic’s for some time but didn’t want to post them together because they “would” “may” cause controversy, 

The range is over ¾ mile, 1207 meters plus, I don’t have an accurate way to measure it, sorry but its way out there.

50W LightForce HID Blitz Mod





MaxaBeam, *HIGH* the focus was opened up to try and cover the same area as the Blitz, light up the white ball.





Yep the MaxaBeam on tight focus will probably throw farther but for me the spot is too small for use, pick the right tool for your needs 

Me, I'm looking for a 75W ballast  Dan

Later
Kelly


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 9, 2007)

It's cool to post those pictures. Like you said, to be objective, the MB should be in it's tight focus, and your shots should be taken from up close to the target to avoid dust reflection.

To follow That_Guy's logic by cropping both pictures, they would show the MB to have a reduced brightness of the target than the Blitz, which is preposterous. This does demonstrate some of the dust reflection effect however.


----------



## That_Guy (Mar 9, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> B.S. That's exactly why in your first post you quoted all the posts that did not have objective throw comparisons, but rather were an assortment of opinions, and then picked two known defective lights to try and make your case.



I guess it all depends on how you define objective. It would be nice if everyone could send their SNs off to NIST for a totally objective candlepower measurement. But that ain't going to happen. I consider posts like "My SN throws really far" or "My SN throws just as far as the MB I saw last week" or "This picture of a SN looks just as bright as this other guys picture of a MB" subjective.

However when it comes to side by side comparisons the human eye is pretty good at telling if one light throws further than the other or if they are both similar. A luxmeter would be better obviously, but a side by side comparison is pretty accurate and I consider it to be objective. If someone compares a SN side by side with light X and says that light X throws further you can be pretty damn sure that in reality light X really does throw further.




> Again, he did not use the words "slightly worse" as you did...but there is nothing objective in his post. His images are gone, so why are you violating your first rule that I highlighted above in blue?



The fact that he didn't use the exact words "slightly worse" is irrelevant, it is simply the only logical conclusion one can draw from what he said which is: SN Boost > MB Normal > SN Normal. I don't know why your arguing this point so much since it supports your position. BTW I do have his photos:
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/7889/mbsn7cr2.jpg
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6688/mbsn8ja1.jpg
They clearly show that the SN is worse than the MB, but still rather close.



> That was *not *an objective comment from 4Sevens. It was a subjective measurement with distances that varied in his memory of what was done. Anyone using a Meterman LM631 light meter knows how notoriously inaccurate they are depending on ambient conditions, placement position in the hotspot, calibration of the meter, charge level of the light's batteries, light's focus, etc. etc.



In what you quoted I said that he compared the SN side by side with a MB, yet it sounds like you're talking about the SN cp measurement he obtained in the thread I mentioned a few posts up. I've already said that I believe side by side comparisons are objective. Regarding the cp reading, yes your right it's not very accurate, but still accurate enough to determine that 4sevens has a "good" SN. Again I don't know why your arguing against a point which supports your position.



> You still think you should be including known defective lights? You say it like a part of your case thinks they should still be considered. ROFL!!!



Yes I do think they could be included, but I can't be bothered arguing this point, it takes too much time and is unnecessary with Mac's pictures.



> First of all on Mac's images, there is a difference between how a larger amount of light affects the CCD recording surface of a digital camera than a smaller spot of light. Different camera CCD surfaces are also more/less sensitive to different spectrums of light. It's not like using emulsion film.
> 
> Then there is the whole issue of dust and particulate matter capturing more total light from the wider XeRay beam, and appearing to the camera that it is recording what is at the tree. In reality, some of the air particles are "falsely reflecting" surrounding light and giving the illusion of the tree looking brighter.
> 
> To get a really objective image for this purpose, you would need to take the camera up very close to the tree to remove the dust reflection issue which is giving significant distortion of a target that far away.



That is a point, but not enough to explain the enormous difference. The XeRay is clearly significantly brighter than the SN. Remember that the SN isn't meant to meet the XeRay, but *exceed it by over 8 times!* Do you really think that dust in the air, scattered light and the flaws in CCD cameras are enough to make a light look *over 10 times dimmer* than it really is?



> The ONLY real objective comparison should be done with beam shots of the SN next to the MB, or taken separately of the same target at the same time of night & with the same camera settings. Then the camera would have the same light color, beam size, same level of dust reflection, and would have the same result on a digital camera's CCD capturing surface. That was not done here. Drawing any conclusions as you have done from Mac's images is preposterous.



As far as I know the beam shots taken by Mac were done with identical camera settings (pretty pointless doing a shootout if they weren't). If only beam shots of near identical lights (same spectrum, beam size and dust reflection) are accurate, then what's the point of taking beam shots at all? This would mean that pretty much every beam shot comparison / shootout would be useless. That means the comparison Mac did, and all the superlight shootouts by Mr. Ted Bear and Kenshiro would be useless. In reality the superlight shootouts by Mr. Ted Bear and Kenshiro are some of the most objective and useful comparisons ever done on CPF.




> They are relevant in so far as other people who got the light have confirmed that his representation is accurate to their experience. I have seen no posts from any recipients of the Group Buy (other than the known defective units) who said that he misrepresented this light with his images.



You spend this whole post saying how both peoples comparisons and pictures are useless, then use Solomons pictures and peoples opinions on how accurate these pictures appear to them as objective evidence that the SNs are as good as everyone thinks (in other words, as good as a MB)? I've already said that Solomons pictures are useless because there is nothing to compare it to which means that he could be using a long exposure to make the SN look brighter than it is. But even if he isn't it and the exposure is accurate, it is still impossible to tell how bright it is with nothing to compare it to.


----------



## That_Guy (Mar 9, 2007)

Sway said:


> MaxaBeam, HIGH the focus was opened up to try and cover the same area as the Blitz, light up the white ball.



As Lux has already said, kinda pointless when the MB is flooded out. When two lights have the same beam diameter the throw is determined by which light has the most lumens (int this case your Blitz) rather than which light has the most throw at best focus.



> Me, I'm looking for a 75W ballast  Dan


Me too. I've been wanting to mod my Blitz to HID for ages, ever since I first saw your Blitz mod. That's what inspired me to get a Blitz in the first place. It seems that I'm the only Blitz owner in AUS who HASN'T yet modded it to HID . Got the 75W BB with the intention of using the ballast for a Blitz HID mod, but it turns out I rather like the BB as it is (and I'm too lazy).

LuxLuthor,
You've admitted that the comparison isn't fair because the MB is flooded out, yet you then use the fact that the MB throws no further than the Blitz as proof that cropping pictures is useless? The HID Blitz already comes close to the MB in throw (50W HID Blitz would be around 3 mcp, MB on boost 6). The fact that they are so similar when the MB is flooded out is exactly what I would expect.

Regarding the issue of dust reflection, it's only a significant issue at very long distances such as in Sway's photo. In Mac's comparisons the distance is so short that atmospheric reflection would have made no appreciable difference.


----------



## Andreas (Mar 9, 2007)

Hey guys!! I do have two still. I have one brand new in the case that was one of the units purchased here from peakbeam when the little controversy between the supernova and maxabeam came up. This was one of the units / kits that came direct through that group buy. I don't remember what I paid but I would let that unit go for what I paid which if I remember was a great price!! It is brand spanking new!! I think I opened up the case and that was it. Purchased it as it was a great deal and I thought I would keep one at a second home we have. but then never did.


The other I have is a deluxe kit that I have been using for myself. Going to keep that one!!

thanks

Andreas


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 9, 2007)

Andreas....you have an extra MaxaBeam? Dibbs on it if so. I'll PM you now.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 10, 2007)

I just said "Dibbs" on getting that light from Andreas.

That_Guy, there is not much point at saying the same thing over and over. There is however a HUGE difference even with Mac's pictures when the dust, humidity, pollen, etc. etc. are in the air...even at those distances.

My issue with your original and subsequent posts is that you have not given an objective basis, or additional examples of the SN to justify your position that there are all these substandard ones floating around.

Saying that the known defective units that Solomon was basically dumping to make more money--should be included is about the stupidest thing you have said. An example would be if threw a MB on the ground to seriously mess it up, and then insist that it be used for an objective comparison with other working MB lights. That just blew your whole point.

Where are all the posts and specifics to back up your claim of poor beam quality SN's? Mac's pix don't do it. Those two vague black pix you just posted don't tell us squat. If the SN is the one on the right, then it is brighter in both views....which conflicts with what his post said. 

Anyway, you have not made your case....but I guess you think you have...so have a good time in your fantasy world.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 10, 2007)

Andreas....get my PM? & Email?


----------



## That_Guy (Mar 10, 2007)

The reason why I think the defective SNs should be included is because the only supposed problem is a non functioning boost mode which was determined to be due to a bad battery pack. Solomon did NOT say anything about the performance on "normal" mode being reduced. And I've shown that the performance of these units (well ddaadd's and Lunarmodules at least) is VERY much reduced by a factor of at least 5. Surly if the performance of these defective units was this bad compared to the rest then someone would have noticed? As far as I know everyone is happy with the performance on normal mode of these defective SNs.

Regarding Mac's pictures, I just don't understand how you can say that the difference is just due to the atmosphere. The difference between the pictures is night and day! These pictures are about as objective as they come. I find the idea that 100m of atmosphere can cause one light to appear over 10 times dimmer than it really is (while leaving the other light unaffected) preposterous! Just look at the damn pictures! I can't see how anyone could say it's just due to the atmosphere with a straight face.


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 10, 2007)

Ah crap, look s like me and Andreas just made a deal...... :rock:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 10, 2007)

I clearly am saying that Mac's pictures with the little cropped area you used are preposterous in comparing the two lights. The fact that you are so sure what exactly was wrong with the defective units that Solomon dumped is also ridiculous. Neither you or me have any idea what exactly was wrong with them. To include defective units invalidates your entire premise.

Mac will tell you he has one of the powerful SN's, and sold it recently. I trust Mac's opinion, based on all the lights he has and has custom built a lot more than anything you have said. You obviously have no idea about dust, pollen, humidity, or scatter reflection with regards to photography of settings as we are discussing.

There is nothing you have said or linked to uncover these supposedly prevalent poor performing SN's. You have only pointed to two defective units that is preposterous to discuss anything about. Nothing else you have said is objective. Even the two dark images supposedly from Chris M. are totally opposite from what he posted.


----------



## Andreas (Mar 10, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> Andreas....get my PM? & Email?


 
Idid and sent you back an e-mail and PM


----------



## That_Guy (Mar 10, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> To include defective units invalidates your entire premise.


Including these units hardly invalidates my entire argument which includes Mac's light.



> Mac will tell you he has one of the powerful SN's, and sold it recently. I trust Mac's opinion, based on all the lights he has and has custom built a lot more than anything you have said.


We spend all this time arguing about objectiveness, and you tell me to trust his opinion that he has a "good" SN (even though he has never compared it the a MB AFAIK)?



> Nothing else you have said is objective.


Except Mac's images. Easy to say I have nothing objective if you get to pick and choose what's objective and what's not, simply declare everything as not objective and then exclude it on the basis of not being objective. I'm comparing two pictures taken in identical conditions with identical settings, you can't get much more objective than that.



> Even the two dark images supposedly from Chris M. are totally opposite from what he posted.



Are you suggesting that I fabricated those images? I don't see how they're opposite to what he posted, they show the SN (on the left) being slightly worse than the MB, just like he said. Are you trying to suggest that the SN and MB are identical?

EDIT: Lux, I've just noticed that you've purchased what was originally 4sevens unit. Want to prove me wrong? Get a light meter and make a measurement! This is meant to be one of the "good" ones so that shouldn't be very hard. Also, why do you want Andreas's Maxabeam so much when you earlier said that there's not much point in getting a MB when it would mostly be a shelf queen and the SN is nearly as good for a fraction of the price, and more importantly, already have a SN? Sure Andreas's Maxabeam is discounted, but it is still 2x as much as a SN, and you already have a SN.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 10, 2007)

That Guy, you are wrong about almost everything. You don't know what Andreas was selling it for, and "dibbs" doesn't mean a done deal...but he did just sell it to PSM, and I am happy for him. If I could have gotten a MB made in the USA for a great price, of course that would be my preference.

This was never a trashing of the MB, just that I am not willing to pay their new unit price for a light I would not use much. Also, I do not in fact have 4Seven's light, despite what you may think from looking at posts. it is a complicated situation, which is none of your business.

My posts and only point remains that you have not presented any objective evidence that there are "all these substandard SN's floating around." You just have your lame interpretation of Mac's pictures, and keep insisting on using the defective units to make your lame argument. You cannot provide any posts or threads of anyone saying they have a bad SN. So your arguments are irrelevant, and I'm not going to waste any more time since you have nothing new to say.

Congratulations PSM, I know you really wanted one of these, and I'm now back to my Plan "B" of ordering one from the Chinese company for a really great price, and which will get me a new one with Lithium base battery pack...which is a much better price than Andreas was selling his MB.


----------



## That_Guy (Mar 10, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> You just have your lame interpretation of Mac's pictures



Pictures speak louder than words, and the SNs poor performance in Mac's pictures is self evident, no need for my "lame interpretation"



> and keep insisting on using the defective units to make your lame argument.


Again, not necessary with Mac's pictures.



> You cannot provide any posts or threads of anyone saying they have a bad SN.


Most SN owners have never seen or used a mega thrower and aren't aware of what a MB is capable of (and what their SN should be capable of).



> So your arguments are irrelevant


I don't need people to have negative opinions of their SN to make my argument, I have Mac's picture.



> I'm not going to waste any more time since you have nothing new to say.


Fine, lets leave it here.


----------



## Ra (Mar 10, 2007)

PoliceScannerMan said:


> Ah crap, look s like me and Andreas just made a deal...... :rock:



That was what this was all about.. You getting into the Maxabeam-zone !!

I know you'll love it !!!


Now this thread can be closed,, yes???


Regards,

Ra.


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 10, 2007)

Ra said:


> That was what this was all about.. You getting into the Maxabeam-zone !!
> 
> I know you'll love it !!!
> 
> ...


At that price, I couldnt refuse! 

I talked to Andreas for about 45 minutes on the phone last night, he is a real nice guy. I know if I dont like it I will be able to sell it for what I paid, but come on, I know I'll love it.


----------



## Mr Ted Bear (Mar 10, 2007)

So, who has a good" SN? I understand Kenshio is working on a shootout to include the various new lights that came ou last year. If someone could pm me...


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 10, 2007)

Mr. Ted Bear is no stranger to bright lights! This thread is bringing out all of the High-Lumenholics.... :laughing:


----------



## chasm22 (Mar 10, 2007)

PoliceScannerMan said:


> Mr. Ted Bear is no stranger to bright lights! This thread is bringing out all of the High-Lumenholics.... :laughing:



Yes he is. And very thorough doing the shootout. He's the reason I purchased the Barnburner.

Chuck


----------



## cmacclel (Mar 10, 2007)

The whole issue with the SuperNova is / was the battery packs. The brightness from 12v to 14v looks almost double!

Before I sold mine I had all the parts to run it from Li-Ions regulated to 13.8v but never completed the project. Since the SN is not regulated the battery pack voltage plays a huge part in it's performance.

Oh PSM when your done playing with the MB send it my way please  I'd love to play with one.

Mac


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 10, 2007)

Mac do you have any opinion on how That_Guy was interpreting your cropped pictures comparing the XeRay 50W vs. SN ? I raised the issue of general light reflection and interaction with air particles...similar to the Aircraft Landing Light Larry14K/Your Torch affecting the apparent brightness of a far away target refelcting light back to a CCD camera recording surface.


----------



## Sway (Mar 10, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> It's cool to post those pictures. Like you said, to be objective, the MB should be in it's tight focus, and your shots should be taken from up close to the target to avoid dust reflection.



Nope, I want to see with the naked eye from where I'm standing, pic's up close to avoid impurities in the air are of little *use to me* as I don't have that advantage when using the light.

The MaxaBeam is cool and apples vs to oranges vs a modded Blitz, I want them both........

Including a 75W Ballast Blitz Hand Cannon :wave:

Later
Kelly


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 10, 2007)

cmacclel said:


> Oh PSM when your done playing with the MB send it my way please  I'd love to play with one.
> 
> Mac



We'll do. :naughty:


----------



## That_Guy (Mar 11, 2007)

cmacclel said:


> The whole issue with the SuperNova is / was the battery packs. The brightness from 12v to 14v looks almost double!



That's what I originally thought. Problem is not even a 2x difference in brightness is enough to explain the apparent poor performance of some SNs. The 50W XeRay is at most 500 000cp. Your SN is clearly less, lets be conservative and say 400 000cp. How many cp a SN needs to be considered "good" is hard to say. A MB on normal is 4 200 000cp. Again lets be conservative and say that a "good" SN has 76% of the performance of a MB, or 3 200 000cp. That makes your SN at least 8 times worse than a "good" one, too much to be explained by a bad battery alone.


----------



## Ra (Mar 11, 2007)

That_Guy,

Did I miss something?? 

How do you know that Mac's SN performes worse on candlepower-output then the 50watt XeRay ?? Did someone a lux-measurement on both??

Please enlighten me on this one !!


Regards,

Ra.


----------



## cmacclel (Mar 11, 2007)

That_Guy said:


> That's what I originally thought. Problem is not even a 2x difference in brightness is enough to explain the apparent poor performance of some SNs. The 50W XeRay is at most 500 000cp. Your SN is clearly less, lets be conservative and say 400 000cp. How many cp a SN needs to be considered "good" is hard to say. A MB on normal is 4 200 000cp. Again lets be conservative and say that a "good" SN has 76% of the performance of a MB, or 3 200 000cp. That makes your SN at least 8 times worse than a "good" one, too much to be explained by a bad battery alone.




That-Guy.........seriously I don't care what numbers you estimate nor do I care what light is brighter or has more CP. If you don't have a SuperNova and a Maxabeam in hand and measure them both with the same equipment at the same time then numbers mean absolutely nothing. We know of 1 member that compared both lights side by side and stated the performance was close.


PSM look what you started 



Mac


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 11, 2007)

cmacclel said:


> PSM look what you started


 :devil: :devil: :devil:


----------



## Ra (Mar 11, 2007)

cmacclel said:


> That-Guy.........seriously I don't care what numbers you estimate nor do I care what light is brighter or has more CP. If you don't have a SuperNova and a Maxabeam in hand and measure them both with the same equipment at the same time then numbers mean absolutely nothing. We know of 1 member that compared both lights side by side and stated the performance was close.Mac



That was what I wanted to know !!


Mac, can you clear something up for me??: Does, apart from the obvious Z-beamfocus, the SN have the posibillity to collimate the lamp in the X- and Y- direction, like MB has??


Regards,

Ra.


----------



## cmacclel (Mar 11, 2007)

The SN only has in and out adjustability.


Mac


----------



## Ra (Mar 11, 2007)

cmacclel said:


> The SN only has in and out adjustability.
> 
> 
> Mac



If that is the case, I can imagine that there are units that are not properly collimated, and have much less performance compared to Maxabeam !!



Regards,

Ra.


----------



## J_Oei (Mar 11, 2007)

Hey, you are all forgetting the CPF motto!

Buy both!!!

I did.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 11, 2007)

*J-Oei, then what is your experience side by side MB vs. SN on regular and boost*? I have already rejected That_Guy's illogical approach to them.

I missed that PSM pickup from Andreas of the affordable MB which I would have preferred getting, but I still have an opportunity to get a brand new one (supposedly with improved features) & with Li clip on bottom pack that is about 1/5-1/6th the cost of MB....from that same company that sold them to Solomon. I'm still not 100% sure on getting one, as I realize both are pretty limited in their usefullness.


----------



## That_Guy (Mar 11, 2007)

Ra said:


> That_Guy,
> 
> Did I miss something??
> 
> ...


Simple, Mac's pictures! Not exactly a lux measurement I know, but a camera is like one big light meter (actually more like millions of tiny light meters all pointing at slightly different places)!

I cropped off the centre part of the beam of both the Supernova and XeRay.

Supernova:






XeRay:





The pictures clearly show that the hotspot of the XeRay is brighter than the hotspot of the Supernova (ie. more throw). How much worse the SN is than the XeRay is impossible to tell, but the fact that it is indeed worse is obvious.



cmacclel said:


> nor do I care what light is brighter or has more CP.



You should! The whole point of a MB or SN is that they have a LOT more candlepower than other lights!



> If you don't have a SuperNova and a Maxabeam in hand and measure them both with the same equipment at the same time then numbers mean absolutely nothing.



The whole point of numbers is that they are objective and DO mean something and CAN be compared to other numbers! Whole point of candlepower is to compare the throw of different lights. Making measurements using the same light meter at the same time is obviously the most accurate way to compare lights, but is not necessary for approximate comparisons. If it was necessary there would be no point in anyone measuring anything! Standard light meters are very inaccurate, but still sufficient to measure significant (>50%) differences.



> We know of 1 member that compared both lights side by side and stated the performance was close.



That’s the problem I’m having. I think something like 50 CPF members got Supernovas, but I have VERY little data to go on. Only something like 5 members have said ANYTHING at all about how the SN performs relative to other lights. The prevailing opinion that the SN is very close to the MB is based on very little data at all! The only data we have which says that is the review by Chris M. and what 4sevens said about when he saw both side by side.

All my data consists of is:
- 2 SN owners who have said that performance is close to a MB.
- 3 SN owners who have indirectly said that performance is significantly worse than a MB.

Will SOMEONE out there who has a Supernova PLEASE take a lux measurement!

J_Oei, you have both, PLEASE get a lux meter and compare the two!


----------



## Lurveleven (Mar 12, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> From reading all the people who have seen this, including those comparing it side by side with the Maxabeam, it is obvious that Lurveleven is wrong in his assumptions about the SN output, based only on some posted numbers. That is why the Maxabeam people are upset...for 1/5th the price, you get damn near the same light output.



I was only comparing the manufacturer claims, so I did not assume anything. 

I really don't understand why SN would underrate their product so much, it does not make much sense.
I would actually have expected the performance to have been much closer to a MB so I'm really surprised by their numbers.

Looking at cmacclel's pictures, it looks like the SN is poorly focused, there is not a much brighter center in the spot like you see in properly focused MBs. I would have been very unhappy with the SN in cmacclel's pictures, and those not able to see that the XeRay has more candlepower than the SN in those pictures needs to get their eyes checked! (or get a new monitor). And the pictures cannot be discredited by dust in the air as you tried to do, if there were a lot of particles in the air causing reflection, then the ray from the light would have become much more dominant in the pictures.

Sigbjoern


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 14, 2007)

Look what I got myself into by starting this thread, the eagle has landed! :rock: 

Now I have to charge this puppy until tommorow before I get to play with it....

Thanks Andreas!


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 14, 2007)

Damn! I'm happy for you...in a sour grapes sort of way. I wonder if that PeakBeam dude would consider coming up with some more of these if I threatened to try doing another "Solomon" GB here? LOL!

I doubt I will ever find one of those real MB's for that price, and I'm not forking over the ridiculous amount for a new one from PeakBeam. C'est la vie.


----------



## seery (Mar 14, 2007)

PSM...Congrats on a great light!

After seeing the picks, I ran down and locked my checkbook in the safe as
not to get tempted.

Argghhh...was it 15-22-7-18...no maybe 22-18-15-7...or...7-22-15-18!


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 14, 2007)

Thanks guys, everything was SEALED, not touched. I was amazed that all this stuff was still in the Original packaging, even the owners manual! :laughing: 

I am soooo tempted to take it off the charger early, but I'm gonna do it right and charge it for 24 hours. I have already contacted Maxabeam about the fast charger and DC cord.


----------



## cmacclel (Mar 14, 2007)

PoliceScannerMan said:


> Thanks guys, everything was SEALED, not touched. I was amazed that all this stuff was still in the Original packaging, even the owners manual! :laughing:
> 
> I am soooo tempted to take it off the charger early, but I'm gonna do it right and charge it for 24 hours. I have already contacted Maxabeam about the fast charger and DC cord.




I just lost all respect for you!!!! Waite 24 hours.......what are you a WOMEN.


Mac


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 14, 2007)

Dude, I dont wanna mees up this battery! Good things come to those who wait.

I just also noticed something cool, look at the Serial number!! The G3 means 3rd generation circuitry (Still the current circuitry!). #rd Gen lights have 1,000,000 more CP than 2nd and 1st. (7,500,000CP)


----------



## cmacclel (Mar 14, 2007)

Mess the battery Up???? You should'nt be able to mess the battey up even if you tried. It has protection circuit 

Mac


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 14, 2007)

Its NiCad. :green: All I have is this trickle charger, doesnt NiCad have a horrible "memory" problem?


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 14, 2007)

G3 to boot....oh that is salt in the wound.


----------



## ShortArc (Mar 14, 2007)

PoliceScannerMan said:


> Its NiCad. :green: All I have is this trickle charger, doesnt NiCad have a horrible "memory" problem?


You need to get the Multi-Voltage Smart Charger. Fast and has a nice conditioning mode. Only worth it if you use the light more frequently, ofcourse.
Cheers.


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 14, 2007)

ShortArc said:


> You need to get the Multi-Voltage Smart Charger. Fast and has a nice conditioning mode. Only worth it if you use the light more frequently, ofcourse.
> Cheers.


Do you know how much $$$ it is?


----------



## Sway (Mar 15, 2007)

PSM,

Congratulations on the acquisition, I would say that I’m envious but I’m not, no not really, well may be just a little.





*MAN YOUR KILLING ME!*




Where are the beam shots :wave:

Later
Kelly


----------



## larryk (Mar 15, 2007)

PoliceScannerMan said:


> Thanks guys, everything was SEALED, not touched. I was amazed that all this stuff was still in the Original packaging, even the owners manual! :laughing:
> 
> I am soooo tempted to take it off the charger early, but I'm gonna do it right and charge it for 24 hours. I have already contacted Maxabeam about the fast charger and DC cord.



Congratulations on your new Maxabeam, I think you will love it. There is a seller on Ebay with a MBP-4210 for a Buy It Now price of $ 99.00. I have no affiliation with the seller, but he claims it is new, and has several available. 
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/maxa...043QQitemZ260093872043QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW


----------



## ShortArc (Mar 15, 2007)

PoliceScannerMan said:


> Do you know how much $$$ it is?


PSM,
I would recommend the MBP-5200 or MBP-5600 (which also powers the light).
If I remember correctly the list is around $500 but with a little bit of patience you can do a lot better than that.
Cheers,
Willem.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 15, 2007)

I think you should just give up on the whole charging dilemma and turn the whole light and battery setup over to me.


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 15, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> I think you should just give up on the whole charging dilemma and turn the whole light and battery setup over to me.


I dunno Lux, this looks like a keeper. I'm gonna field test tonight, the battery just came off the charger. :naughty:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 15, 2007)

:mecry:



PoliceScannerMan said:


> I dunno Lux, this looks like a keeper. I'm gonna field test tonight, the battery just came off the charger. :naughty:


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 15, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> :mecry:


However, if and when I do sell it, YOU LUX LUTHOR, have DIBS! :laughing:


----------



## XeRay (Mar 15, 2007)

PoliceScannerMan said:


> However, if and when I do sell it, YOU LUX LUTHOR, have DIBS! :laughing:


 
In "legaleze", *First Right of Refusal*.


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 15, 2007)

:thinking:


----------



## XeRay (Mar 15, 2007)

PoliceScannerMan said:


> :thinking:


 
Are you taking it on the Honeymoon or loaning it to Lux while you are gone?


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 15, 2007)

XeRay said:


> PoliceScannerMan said:
> 
> 
> > I will be gone 03/18/2007 till 03/29/2007 on my honeymoon in St. Lucia.
> ...



Hey ummm PSM.....I have been meaning to get your mailing address to ummm....add to my X-mas list....or something.....heh heh heh. :naughty:


----------



## XeRay (Mar 15, 2007)

How could anyone turn down that cute "baby" face.


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 15, 2007)

I was trying to figure out what your post meant Dan.  

The Maxabeam will stay in the closet while I am gone. Just like the XeVision, its a keeper.

BTW: I tested it tonight, OMFG!

The light is incredible, peroid. I hit a radio tower over a mile away, it looked like a light sabre pointing it at the tower. But, when looking through binoculars the tower was lit up plain as day. You truly just dont understand what this Maxabeam can do, you gotta see it in person. Throw, throw, throw x 1000!!!! :rock:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Mar 16, 2007)

PoliceScannerMan said:


> The Maxabeam will stay in the closet while I am gone.


Ummm....like what part of the house is that closet in? LOL!



PoliceScannerMan said:


> BTW: I tested it tonight, OMFG!
> 
> The light is incredible, peroid. I hit a radio tower over a mile away, it looked like a light sabre pointing it at the tower. But, when looking through binoculars the tower was lit up plain as day. You truly just dont understand what this Maxabeam can do, you gotta see it in person. Throw, throw, throw x 1000!!!! :rock:


More salt in the wound !!! Your're killin' me here.


----------



## Ra (Mar 16, 2007)

Hi PSM,

A very warm welcome in the world of portable throw !!

I think you already noticed that the MB is no match for the XeVision as it comes to lumens-output. But isn't that laserlike superbeam at beauty on itself !!

Your wife must be very special: Leaving your new toy at home during your honeymoon !!

Anyhow,, I hope you have a very nice time, and post some beamshots of your wife.. uhhhh,,  I mean Maxabeam, when you're back..


Regards,

Ra.


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 16, 2007)

If I wasnt flying out of the country I would take it. I am bringing the Maxabeam to my rehearsal dinner tonight. Its at my mom's neighborhoods clubhouse. I figured after wards, the MB could use a lil exercise lighting up the golf course looking at deer. :rock: 

Ra, thanks for the warm welcome, I agree with you. While the Maxabeam can't compete with the brute force of the XeVisions output, the Maxabeam probably throws 3x as far. So I guess I'll bring both tonight, why not? :laughing:


----------



## Ra (Mar 16, 2007)

PoliceScannerMan said:


> While the Maxabeam can compete with the brute force of the XeVisions output, the Maxabeam probably throws 3x as far. So I guess I'll bring both tonight, why not? :laughing:




You propably mean "While the Maxabeam CAN'T compete..."



Regards,

Ra.


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Mar 16, 2007)

Ra said:


> You propably mean "While the Maxabeam CAN'T compete..."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oops, yes correct!


----------



## Andreas (Apr 5, 2007)

Glad you are enjoying it!! I love mine!!

Andreas


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jun 24, 2007)

Well after just missing that one Andreas sold by a matter of minutes, and seeing BVH post that recent (now locked) thread on the nice new G3 MaxaBeam on EBay, I decided with the extra battery and filter and overall package, that I was gonna grab it....and despite the bidding being driven up by Mac and other CPF'ers, I consider myself very fortunate to finally get the other "Crown Jewel" of my Flashaholocism I have been wanting....and at about half the price of a retail unit.


----------



## BVH (Jun 24, 2007)

I acquired a number of the HID lights Lux has quite some time ago. I had a Maxabeam clone. Hmmmmm...is Lux following me? Then I was lucky enough to acquire some heavy-duty military HID hardware.

Lux, you know where you're headed, right? Can you spell...

AN/VSS-Xx


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jun 25, 2007)

Well I had temporary possession of a damaged in shipment SuperNova that really was a piece of ultra-crap in terms of one of the worst examples of lousy Chinese rip-offs of the quality product. I'm glad it was damaged, but was not willing to pay $2400+ for a full retail MB....so this pickup for a new, G3, two batteries, filter, case, etc. at half that was exactly what I was hoping for.

Should be here late this week.

I have never had the interest (other than admiring) in getting one of those AN/VSS....not portable enough for me to find it useful. I go boating a lot, so all these portable HID's are what works great for me.


----------



## chasm22 (Jun 26, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> Well after just missing that one Andreas sold by a matter of minutes, and seeing BVH post that recent (now locked) thread on the nice new G3 MaxaBeam on EBay, I decided with the extra battery and filter and overall package, that I was gonna grab it....and despite the bidding being driven up by Mac and other CPF'ers, I consider myself very fortunate to finally get the other "Crown Jewel" of my Flashaholocism I have been wanting....and at about half the price of a retail unit.




Ebay still amazes me sometimes. In recent years it has become harder and harder to find deals such as this one. A nice grab if there ever was one. Brand new at that price....whew! Congratulations. Color me green.

Chuck


----------



## cmacclel (Jun 26, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> Well after just missing that one Andreas sold by a matter of minutes, and seeing BVH post that recent (now locked) thread on the nice new G3 MaxaBeam on EBay, I decided with the extra battery and filter and overall package, that I was gonna grab it....and despite the bidding being driven up by Mac and other CPF'ers, I consider myself very fortunate to finally get the other "Crown Jewel" of my Flashaholocism I have been wanting....and at about half the price of a retail unit.




Just missing the one Andreas sold?? You mean the on he offered to PSM that you tried to get 

I bid $550........ So I didn't drive the Ebay price up.

<ac


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jun 26, 2007)

cmacclel said:


> Just missing the one Andreas sold?? You mean the on he offered to PSM that you tried to get
> 
> I bid $550........ So I didn't drive the Ebay price up.
> 
> <ac



I didn't mean that in a bad way....but I posted a PM and thread post to buy it first, then called Andreas while he was on the phone with PSM. When he was done with that call, he called me back...and almost sold me his other one....so yeah I call that "just missing"...but clearly PSM made first direct contact, so it went to him.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 6, 2007)

Just saw two MaxaBeams up on EBay. Some minor issues, but seller offering refund if not happy. Just an FYI.


----------



## Nitro (Sep 10, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> Just saw two MaxaBeams up on EBay. Some minor issues, but seller offering refund if not happy. Just an FYI.



Lux, did you ever get yourself a MB?


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 10, 2007)

Nitro said:


> Lux, did you ever get yourself a MB?



Yeah, I scored a helluva deal. Turns out when I talked to PeakBeam, this EBay unit was shipped out in March/April 2007 to a "Defense Contractor" who sold it, and everything was brand new, & G-3. Came with IR filter, 2 batteries, new style universal MBP-5200 charger, heavy black storm case. What a great light and deal.


----------



## Nitro (Sep 10, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> Yeah, I scored a helluva deal. Turns out when I talked to PeakBeam, this EBay unit was shipped out in March/April 2007 to a "Defense Contractor" who sold it, and everything was brand new, & G-3. Came with IR filter, 2 batteries, new style universal MBP-5200 charger, heavy black storm case. What a great light and deal.



Awesome! Do you mind me asking what that set you back? I've been wanted one of those for years, but I could never justify paying that much for a play light. However, if there's a chance I could get one cheeper, I'd be all over it.

Also, what ever was determined about the SN compared to the MB, output wise?

Thanks


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 11, 2007)

Nitro said:


> Awesome! Do you mind me asking what that set you back? I've been wanted one of those for years, but I could never justify paying that much for a play light. However, if there's a chance I could get one cheeper, I'd be all over it.
> 
> Also, what ever was determined about the SN compared to the MB, output wise?
> 
> Thanks



$1250, and this was brand new, and is a $3300 package, as mine is identical to this one.

The SuperNova I tried to get "on the cheap" because I felt the same way as you, was DOA, so I never got to see its light...but I did look at it closely, and basically it was very poorly made--and looked like it. Everyone who warned me to stay away from the SN was right now that I compare the quality of it with the MB.

Now, would I pay $3300 for this light I have now? No. I would have been happy if I got this for $1500 though. I'm only reporting my price preference, based on how much I will use this MB, not based on the item's quality pricing. It is very nice quality.


----------



## Nitro (Sep 11, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> $1250, and this was brand new, and is a $3300 package, as mine is identical to this one.
> 
> The SuperNova I tried to get "on the cheap" because I felt the same way as you, was DOA, so I never got to see its light...but I did look at it closely, and basically it was very poorly made--and looked like it. Everyone who warned me to stay away from the SN was right now that I compare the quality of it with the MB.
> 
> Now, would I pay $3300 for this light I have now? No. I would have been happy if I got this for $1500 though. I'm only reporting my price preference, based on how much I will use this MB, not based on the item's quality pricing. It is very nice quality.



Wow, that's a great deal. I'd buy it in a second for that amount.

How often do they come up on eBay? I'll have to keep my eyes open.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 11, 2007)

I think its random. 

Set an EBay search alert with keywords, with "*Save this search to My eBay*" and it will send you emails if something you want gets listed.


----------



## tdurand (Sep 11, 2007)

Wow. That is a great deal on that light with the extras.
Any idea off hand what makes the charger "new?" AFAIK the G-3 had improved output from the ballast and lamp, but I'm not sure what changed on the charger.

Nice grab Lux!

T


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 12, 2007)

T, I'm just a noob with MB, so I don't know what all is improved with G3.

It does all the battery chemistry types they sell now. It has a wide range of voltage inputs (11V to 36V DC). Maybe it has a more effective sensing and charging algorhythm? Mine is the horizontal mount MBP-5200 G-3 model.


----------



## tdurand (Sep 12, 2007)

Checking their site it looks like they've just streamlined the design to allow the light to sit on the charger "cradle-style." I think my 4200 charger is not Li-ion capable. :mecry:

T


----------



## Nitro (Sep 13, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> I think its random.
> 
> Set an EBay search alert with keywords, with "*Save this search to My eBay*" and it will send you emails if something you want gets listed.



I'll have to do this. Thanks.


----------

