# Lumapower MVP Review - 3X Cree - BEAMSHOTS, RUNTIMES, COMPARISONS, and more!



## selfbuilt (Aug 14, 2008)

_*Reviewer's Note: *This is a detailed review of new Lumapower 3-Cree MVP ("Most Valuable Player") light. For more details, please see their manufacturer's thread in CPFM. The flashlight was provided by Ricky at LP for review._

*UPDATE Nov 8, 2008:* My review of the new MVP TurboForce P7 is now up.

*Warning: Very pic heavy!*







*Part I: Build Overview*

Multiple emitter lights have been something of niche market up until now, due to the typically higher costs associated with lights in this segment - although there have been a few relatively inexpensive entries from the discount/deal sites (see Part II for a direct comparison to one). The MVP is the first high-end 3-Cree light from Lumapower, an established maker of good quality lights. I believe the MSRP is currently $230 for this light, but dealers may sell for less.

Here are the relevant manufacturer stats, cobbled together from LP manufacturer's thread and batteryjunction.com's website:


3 Cree Q5 LED's, up to 700 lumens of total output, with significant flood and throw
3 Brightness levels: Hi: 100%, Medium: 25%, Low: 5%, plus high-speed Tactical Strobe (12Hz)
Wide input voltage from 6.5-10V, supports 2xLi-Ion (RCR123A, 17650, 17670 or 18650) and 4xCR123A (recommended only for low and medium output modes, and up to 4 minutes max on high). 2x18650 is the recommended configuration for the longest runtime.
New "sidekick" brightness control switch that works independently from the tailcap power switch (both are forward clickies)
Over discharge protection (for 2x Li-Ion batteries) at 4.8V
Efficient current-controlled DC-DC power circuit
Anti-Roll body design
High grade aircraft T-7 aluminum with Type III HA coating 
Blacked-out 'face' to guard against glare and 'flash' 
AR coated lens 
Estimate Runtime: 90 minutes on High, 2500 minutes on Low (using 2x18650 2600mAH)
Dimensions: Length: 236mm, Bezel Diameter: 60mm, Body Diameter: 28mm, Tail cap Diameter: 32mm, Reflector Diameter: 20mm, Weight:383g (without batteries)

Although I don't usually focus too much on the packaging, I must say this box was definitely designed for display appeal.





















Inside the box, you will find the light comes well secured within foam spacers. There are no included extras with my sample, except for the manual and warranty card. A removable lanyard attachment ring come installed by default on the tailcap.

Here is how it stacks up against the original MRV (with and without the battery extender tube in place):






Usually I like to start with a detailed build overview first, but I thought you might like to see a few close-ups of the business-end view of this light cannon: 











The light engine and multi-reflector systems looks like a work of art to me. :thumbsup: 

This isn't some cheap cobbled-together set of components. Each Cree emitter has its own smooth, deep reflector, and is well mounted in a combined housing with a black "face". Although hard to see from the pics, the individual reflectors are surprisingly deep, which should help produce considerable throw. I will have more to say about this excellent setup after the beamshots pics. 

The light uses three Cree Q5 emitters. My sample came with the "silver" backed versions (which come from the Asian Cree factory), but I know some lights are also shipping with the standard "yellow" backed Crees. There shouldn't be any difference in output - a Q5 is a Q5 is a Q5.

The glass lens has noticeable anti-glare properties on my sample.

Here are a few close-ups of the body design, with the battery extender in place.











Weight (without batteries): 385.1g with extender, 328.5g without extender
Length: 238mm with extender, 170mm without extender

First impressions are that this is a very substantial light! In fact, when I first showed it to Mrs. Selfbuilt, her immediate reaction was to swing it through the air like a club while commenting "this could do a lot of damage."  :devil: And I hadn't even turned it on yet. 

Despite its heft and relative front-heaviness, the light is reasonably comfortable to carry in over-hand tactical fashion (i.e. with thumb on the tailcap). However, I expect most would normally carry it in standard under-hand flashlight carry mode. Personally, I prefer carrying it with the extender portion in place, as the extra weight and length with the extra body tube/battery helps balance out the large head (where most of the weight is centered).

The light can be disassembled into a number of components, as shown here:






The light has two main switches - a rear on/off forward clicky, and a side-mounted "Sidekick" switch at the base of the head. The rear forward clicky switch works as you would expect to activate the light.

The novel feature here is the side switch, which controls the light modes (Hi - Med - Lo - Disorienting Strobe) in a repeating sequence. This Sidekick switch functions even when the light is off. So as long as you know what state the light was last in, you can advance to where you want to be before turning the light back on. This has obvious "tactical" advantages for those of you into such things. Both switches have a good tactile feel - not too stiff, not too loose (although the Sidekick switch seems to momentarily pass through the Lo output mode before locking on to the next mode, for some reason). 

The build/design of the light is of very high quality. All parts fit together well, with and without the extender piece in place (i.e. no gaps or raised edges that might catch). The lanyard ring is removable. The hard anodizing is a nice gloss black on my sample, and seems consistently thick and evenly applied (although there is some mottling on the main battery tube portion). Knurling is relatively smooth and not very aggressive, but the modular design helps with grip.

The only issue I have with the build is the screw threads. I found the threads on the tailcap portion of the battery extender to be little rough (there was a slight burr on mine). More significantly, none of portions are anodized, so tailcap lock-out is not possible. I like to be able to lock-out multi-cell lights when not in use, as a safety precaution. An extra advantage of anodizing would be the ability to use the light as a twisty in addition to a tactical clicky. 

At first, I thought the lack of thread anodizing might be to allow a continuous current path for the Sidekick switch to function. But no - it turns out the Sidekick switch works to move between modes even when the batteries are not installed! Not quite sure how they managed this feat. :thinking:

_UPDATE: Thanks to HKJ in post #2, it seems the Sidekick switch is not really a forward clicky, but a mechanical four position switch - hence why it doesn't need power. I'm guessing the low mode is the default state of the light, which is why the light returns to it when switching between states._

The light supposedly uses current-control for its low modes, and there is certainly no evidence of PWM that I could detect. "Disorienting Strobe" runs at a confirmed 12Hz in my testing. I don't know how effective this is in a "tactical situation", but it is certainly one of the most annoying frequencies I've come across.  

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that my cat walked right up to the light while I was measuring its strobe freq, and was completely unfazed by it (he gave it a few sniffs, and then wandered away, seemingly rather bored). Not sure if that response is representative of animals more generally (he's an old cat who has seen it all ). I certainly wouldn't want to repeat that experiment with Mrs. Selfbuilt - I'd likely be on the receiving end of a tactical response myself if I tried.  :laughing:

*Beam Pattern*

Here's a comparison of the MVP on 2x18650 (AW protect 2200mAh, 3.7V) compared to the original Lumapower MRV Q5 on 1x18650. The MRV is the original non-digital version, so output on 18650 is less than the newer versions. Both lights are at ~1 m from a white wall.


















As you can see, the MVP has considerable throw with a very bright spillbeam. There is no sign of the emitter mis-alignment that is common on multi-Cree lights. Even at closer ranges, there was no obvious center "donut" and the triangulation of the triple beam was less than expected. Frankly, I'm very impressed with the beam - especially considering the individual smooth reflectors. 

I'll have more to say about the beam pattern and relative output of this light in Part II of this review, where the 3-Cree Conqueror MC3 will also be included in the comparisons (including more beamshots). Tint on both my MRV Q5 and MVP are fairly warm, which I rather like personally.

*Part II: Comparison Review*

For comparisons, I've chosen (from left to right): the MVP, Conqueror MC3 MCU (3-mode, 3-Cree light), Lumapower MRV, and DBS V2 with DI R2 pill installed. 






First off, let me digress and give some build differences between the MVP and the multi-mode MC3 - both 3-Cree emitter lights.

The MC3 is obviously much smaller and lighter (MC3 is 224g vs MVP's 385g), and also features a removable battery extender. My MC3 is the MCU version that is multi-mode (Hi - Lo - Strobe), in repeating sequence activated by pressing the tailcap clicky (I measured strobe at 7.5Hz). This MCU version is meant to run on 1x18650, 2xCR123A, 2xRCR, or 2x18650 with battery extender in place. This differs from the earlier single-stage MC3 which was 1x18650, or 3xCR123 or 2x18500 with extender (an unusual configuration, and not very popular). Note that 3x or 4xCR123A is not supported on my MC3, which would likely blow the circuit.

Overall body tube/tailcap build is quite good on my MC3. Although not quite up to the MVP's high standard, it's better than most discount site lights I've come across. The head, however, is a different matter:






As you can see, it uses an extra spring to make contact between the outside rim of the circuit board and the body tube (i.e. negative current path). I thought this was rather odd, until I tried to put the light back together and noticed my contact disc was suddenly at a weird angle. I removed the battery tube and saw this:






It seems the contact board is only loosely fitting inside the head assembly (i.e. it is not soldered or even firmly press-fitted to the head chassis). The extra spring is thus necessary to make contact with the main battery tube. There seems to be a lot of thermal gunk stuck on the inside portion of the contact disc ... needless to say, this hardly inspires confidence for other aspects of the head design (e.g. proper heat-sinking? Who knows). :thumbsdow

How about the front end? 






As you can see, the emitters use a shared OP reflector that is cut-down in the middle. Right off the bat, I know this is not going to compare to the excellent throw of the individual deep reflectors on the MVP. But even worse is how badly mis-aligned each of the individual reflectors are within their respective wells. What you can't see easily is that they are not all at the same relative height - and one even looks slightly tilted. :sick2:

Here's a head-on comparison of the two lights, matched for actual size:






*Beam Comparisons*

Here are some white wall shots at ~1 m, both lights on Hi with 2x18650 (AW Protected).


















As noted before, the MVP produces a very pleasing beam pattern with a pronounced hotspot, bright spill, and only a partial "triangulation" effect around the periphery. In contrast, the MC3 reflector produces something of a "daisy flower" pattern of overlapping spillbeam circles. The MC3 hotspot is less defined than the MVP, with a diffuse corona. Tint of the MC3 is very cool on my sample - somewhat pinkish/blue (compared to the warm, slightly green/yellow of my MVP). The camera seems to be accentuating the warm somewhat.

Of course, white wall shots can only tell you so much with these high output lights, so here are a few outdoor shots of the various contenders. What you are looking at below is the grass yard near my home. The lights are all being shone from a balcony about 13 feet up and 10 feet away from the center hotspot location on the ground. All lights are running on AW 18650 (2x for the MVP/MC3, 1x for MRV/DBS).





















As you can see, the MRV and DBS have well-defined hotspots with relatively little spill at this exposure setting (especially the lower output MRV). The MC3 has a diffuse hotspot with very wide spill. The MVP has a nicely defined center hotspot with strong spill. Note that the MVP spillbeam edge is also more sharply defined than the MC3.

What this boils down to is the MVP is a thrower light with good, even, bright spill - the best of both worlds in my opinion. :thumbsup: In contrast the MC3 is mixed-bag of irregularly shaped spill and weaker hotspot. Note that the bluish tint of the MC3 makes it look brighter than the warm-tinted MRV in the above pics - but there's not really much of a difference overall.

*Output, Throw and Runtime Comparisons*

*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, except for the extended run Lo/Min modes which are done without cooling.

Throw values are the square-root of lux measurements taken at 1 meter from the lens, using a light meter.

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*






Note that these values refer to initial output only. Scroll down to the runtime graphs for a better understanding of relative output over time. For example, the MVP is exquisitely regulated on all modes on all battery types from the very start, whereas most of the others here drop quickly from initial values.

*One thing to note is that by both lightbox and ceiling bounce measures, the MVP is at least twice as bright overall as my best throwers.* It is also an excellent thrower, even at 1 m. :kiss:

*Output/Runtime Comparison:*

I've plotted all the MVP runtimes on one graph, to allow you to quickly compare output levels and runtimes. 






Here is how the MVP compares to the competition, on 18650 and RCR:










*Output/Runtime Pattern:*


The MVP features rock-solid regulation on 2x18650, 2xRCR and 4xCR123A in all output modes tested. 
Output/runtime efficiency of Med-Lo modes seems excellent on the MVP, thanks to their current-control circuitry. 
Rather than abruptly hitting the protection circuit cut-off on my Li-ions, output levels dropped off over a matter of several mins before my AW cells kicked off. It's nice to have this sort of advance warning before a protected cell shuts off. 
Max output of the MC3 on 18650/RCR seems slightly higher initially, but it rapidly decays to the regulated level of the MVP. Given the large tint difference between my two samples, I don't think you can draw any definitive conclusion regarding relative max output - I consider them comparable.
Although max 18650 runtime seems comparable between the MVP and MC3, the MC3 clearly drains RCRs at an unacceptably high rate.
Output/Runtime efficiency of the MC3 is quite poor relative to the MVP. On RCR, the MC3 Lo is about the half the output of the MVP Med for equivalent runtime, and about twice the output of the MVP on Lo for less than 1/6 the runtime! :duh2:

*Part III: Preliminary Discussion*

*Battery Compatibility*

_Lumapower MVP_

The MVP is fully regulated on 2x18650, 2xRCR, and 4xCR123A. Personally, I'm very impressed by the rock-solid regulation at all output modes in these various battery configurations. Lumapower has also matched all three output states to the exact same levels between the various batteries, which is quite impressive. :thumbsup:

 *Note that LP advises you to run 4xCR123A on Hi for short bursts of time only.* In fact, the MVP manual clearly states that you void your warranty if you run it for longer than 4 mins at this level. Med and Lo are perfectly safe to run for extended periods of time on 4xCR123A.

The issue seems to be that running continuously at the high current draw of Hi output causes internal CR123A battery resistance to increase to very high levels, leading to excessive power draw from the batteries (with concomitant heat build up). Simply put, you risk frying your circuit or damaging the batteries this way - neither of which is something you would like to experience. The chemistry of Li-ions is different, so prolonged use of Hi mode on 18650/RCR is allowed.

For a similar reason, LP has limited the output of 2xCR123A to lower levels. LP confirmed to me that they chose to limit the current draw with low voltage inputs, so that you can safely run 2xCR123A to your heart's content. 

I think this arrangement regarding primaries is reasonable, as it removes the large risk of damaging the light or your batteries by running flat out on 2xCR123A, but still gives you the option of accessing Hi mode on 4xCR123A for short periods if needed. But please use common sense here and follow the instructions to limit Hi use on 4xCR123A. And as always, I recommend use of brand-name quality primaries in multi-cell setups (e.g. Duracell, Surefire, and Energizer). 

The MVP is clearly designed to work best with 2x18650, which has the best combination of output, runtime, and body heatsinking. Runtimes on 2xRCR were better than I expected, but I think you are best going for 2x18650. And again, I recommend the use of quality protected Li-ions for multi-cell operation. Note also that the light will not turn on with 1x18650.

One last note - I also appreciate the fact that output levels dropped off rapidly over several minutes before the low-voltage protection circuits kicked in on my AW cells. Nice to have this sort of advance warning that its time to recharge.

_Conqueror MC3_

Initial output is very high on 2xCR123A, and build quality is clearly inferior to the MVP (where LP limits or recommends reduced output on primaries). I don't know what a run on 2xC123A on Hi on the MC3 would look like, and I don't plan to find out - it's not worth the risk of potentially turning my MC3 into a roman candle!  As always, battery safety first ... :candle:

Note also that the short runtimes of the MC3 on Hi on RCR are unacceptable - under 20 mins indicates a >3C discharge rate (!), which will adversely affect your RCRs long-term performance. Again, it's not worth the risk of damaging your batteries. As such, you are best running the MC3 on 18650 only. And the given the unknown heatsinking capabilities, I'd recommend limiting Hi use for short bursts only, on all battery types. Note the MC3 can run on 1x18650, with partially reduced output.

*Final (Preliminary) Word*

I think most members here will be happy with the exquisite regulation and excellent runtimes of the MVP at all output levels. You just can't beat current-control for output/runtime efficiency, and I'm impressed that LP was able to the get the low mode down as far as they have. MVP performance certainly blows away the PWM-based low mode of the MC3. And the battery configuration decisions of the MVP make sense to me, which is more than I can say for some other multi-emitter lights. 

Beam quality is also excellent - the three individual reflectors do a good job of providing both significant throw and strong spill. Estimating overall output is difficult with such a strong light, but I can confidently state it is at least twice as bright overall as any of my 1x18650 dedicated throwers, with very respectable throw. However, if you were hoping for three times as bright, you are likely to be disappointed. 

I would like to see more consistently smooth threads, and anodizing on the tailcap threads to allow for lock-out. Other than that, I am quite pleased with the build and features of the light. Note that is does have considerable heft, especially with 2x18650 batteries installed - this is not going to be an EDC light. 

:sweat: There you have it folks. Hope you found that review useful.


----------



## HKJ (Aug 14, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> New "sidekick" brightness control switch that works independently from the tailcap power switch (both are forward clickies)
> The novel feature here is the side switch, which controls the light modes (Hi - Med - Lo - Disorienting Strobe) in a repeating sequence. This Sidekick switch functions even when the light is off. So as long as you know what state the light was last in, you can advance to where you want to be before turning the light back on. This has obvious "tactical" advantages for those of you into such things. Both switches have a good tactile feel - not too stiff, not too loose (although the Sidekick switch seems to momentarily pass through the Lo output mode before locking on to the next mode, for some reason).



The sidekick switch is not really a forward switch, when pressed the light *always* goes to low mode.

The reason it works without power is because it is a mechanical four position switch. 

If your open op the head, your can see that all the electronic is just behind the leds with wires down to the switch, where a connector is used. This makes it possible for new lights engines to be dropped in.


----------



## DM51 (Aug 14, 2008)

Excellent review of a very interesting and impressive light. Moving this to the Review section...


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 14, 2008)

HKJ said:


> The sidekick switch is not really a forward switch, when pressed the light *always* goes to low mode. The reason it works without power is because it is a mechanical four position switch.


That makes sense - I've just updated the review with a note about it. 

Thanks for the detailed pic of the interior head assembly HKJ - I hadn't realized that portion unscrewed so easily. Interesting modular design for upgrades.



DM51 said:


> Excellent review of a very interesting and impressive light. Moving this to the Review section...


Thanks for the move. The light is certainly an interesting new design.


----------



## MattK (Aug 14, 2008)

Another fantastic in-depth review - great work!


----------



## primox1 (Aug 14, 2008)

Thanks Selfbuilt. 
Very useful, and as always, very detailed and thorough! :thumbsup:


----------



## merlocka (Aug 14, 2008)

Mega muchos to Selfbuilt for another excellent review.

And good job Lumapower.


----------



## frosty (Aug 15, 2008)

I've been waiting for a review of this light. Thanks for your efforts. Another top class review.


----------



## Evil Twin (Aug 15, 2008)

I've been seriously considering a purchase of this light and have been waiting for an excellent review such as this to come along. Thanks for all the hard work.


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 15, 2008)

Glad you all liked the review :grouphug: That was a long one - I think I'm going to start keeping it a bit simpler from now on. 

Having done a lot of reviews, I can say the MVP is one of those rare lights that impresses right out of the box (heck, even the box is impressive), and continues to impress once all the testing is complete. 

In the early days of reviewing, I found a number of lights initially impressive, but the bloom withered rapidly upon detailed testing. Lately, I've been finding the opposite - my build quality expectations have risen so much that few lights meet it upon arrival, but I'm seeing some truly impressive circuit/battery performance once I do the detailed output and runtime testing.

It's nice to see manufacturers paying close attention to circuit performance. The MVP has outstanding regulation, well matched output levels on all battery types, excellent runtimes, AND the innovative feature of allowing Li-ions to briefly fall out of regulation for at least several minutes before protection circuits kick in (as an early warning indicator). 

It's easy to become addicted to continously-variable designs, but I think this light shows that there is still value in further optimizing traditional defined-output circuit designs. :thumbsup:


----------



## Raybo (Aug 15, 2008)

Thanks selfbuilt!

I already had an MVP before seeing your review, my review is that I really like it!

Ray


----------



## jirik_cz (Aug 17, 2008)

Friend borrowed me this light yesterday. The build quality is really excellent. Sidekick switch is very useful and it is very bright but not the brightest 3xCree light I've seen so far (Solarforce T700 is brighter). 

The runtime on high doesn't look so good to me. With this batteries and LED configuration I would expect at least 1,5 hours.


----------



## MattK (Aug 17, 2008)

jirik_cz said:


> Friend borrowed me this light yesterday. The build quality is really excellent. Sidekick switch is very useful and it is very bright but not the brightest 3xCree light I've seen so far (Solarforce T700 is brighter).
> 
> The runtime on high doesn't look so good to me. With this batteries and LED configuration I would expect at least 1,5 hours.



Is the T700 brighter for the first minute or is it also brighter 3-4 minutes later? How did you measure the output differences? What color bin are the emitters? I'm betting the T700 has really blue emitters and might possibly be brighter for the first few minutes but that any perceived brightness difference is due to the colder emitter color and even that advantage will fade away as the light engine and LED's heat soak.

I don't know why you would expect a 1.5 hr runtime. Mathematically a 1.5 hr runtime is basically impossible - an AW 18650 2200mah battery, assuming you drain it down to it's circuit allowed max can offer maybe ~8w of power. The light draws ~11W and has super flat regulation (non-dimming output) which means that it's running at full current until the protection circuit kicks in. You would have to have a light engine capable of 100% efficiency to see maybe 1.4hrs - thus your expectations are unrealistic.


----------



## jirik_cz (Aug 17, 2008)

MattK said:


> Is the T700 brighter for the first minute or is it also brighter 3-4 minutes later? How did you measure the output differences? What color bin are the emitters? I'm betting the T700 has really blue emitters and might possibly be brighter for the first few minutes but that any perceived brightness difference is due to the colder emitter color and even that advantage will fade away as the light engine and LED's heat soak.



I didn't want to bash new MVP and should be more clear with my statements;-). When my friend came with the MVP we compared it with T700 and some DX P7 light (all lights belong to him). Tint of all lights was pretty close none of them was noticeably cooler or warmer than the other. By eyes I would say that all lights were in the same 700lm ballpark. T700 had the best throw, MVP was second and the P7 light was last. We were "measuring" only with pretty unmodern equipment - our eyes. And the difference between MVP and T700 was only small. Well, at least you can see my beamshots collection, it is just updated with fresh MVP beamshots;-) outdoor beamshots, indoor beamshots



MattK said:


> I don't know why you would expect a 1.5 hr runtime. Mathematically a 1.5 hr runtime is basically impossible...



Yes you are right. I've made a miscalculation.


----------



## tpchan (Aug 17, 2008)

Great review but you probably want to fix your typo:



selfbuilt said:


> Usually I like to start with a detailed build overview first, but I thought you might like to see a few close-ups of the business-end view of this light canon:



You probably meant cannon, and not "canon" as in "a body of principles or a contrapuntal musical composition".


----------



## MattK (Aug 18, 2008)

jirik_cz said:


> I didn't want to bash new MVP and should be more clear with my statements;-). When my friend came with the MVP we compared it with T700 and some DX P7 light (all lights belong to him). Tint of all lights was pretty close none of them was noticeably cooler or warmer than the other. By eyes I would say that all lights were in the same 700lm ballpark. T700 had the best throw, MVP was second and the P7 light was last. We were "measuring" only with pretty unmodern equipment - our eyes. And the difference between MVP and T700 was only small. Well, at least you can see my beamshots collection, it is just updated with fresh MVP beamshots;-) outdoor beamshots, indoor beamshots
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are right. I've made a miscalculation.



I just wanted some clarity on your statements and the beamshots are helpful. Do you know how long each light had run when you took the pictures? Have you compared each light after 5 and 10 minutes? I ask because Mev's review shows the T700 has significant output dropoff from the outset (on 3 x 18650's at lvl 8): http://light-reviews.com/solarforce_t700/

One of the things we've found with most of the other multi-emitter lights is that they don't have the proper thermal mass to maintain their output. The MVP was carefully designed so as to properly match it's thermal capabilities with it's drive current/heat generation. Also, we wanted to make it as bright as possible while maintaining efficiency (runtime) as there are diminishing returns on the Cree LED's past certain drive currents.

Did you have any thoughts on comparative fit and finish? User interface? 

As we often say; output is just one measure of a light but there is so much more that goes into defining a flashlight than just total initial output.


----------



## jirik_cz (Aug 18, 2008)

MattK said:


> I just wanted some clarity on your statements and the beamshots are helpful. Do you know how long each light had run when you took the pictures? Have you compared each light after 5 and 10 minutes? I ask because Mev's review shows the T700 has significant output dropoff from the outset (on 3 x 18650's at lvl 8): http://light-reviews.com/solarforce_t700/



I usually play with the light for a couple of minutes before I start taking beamshots. Just to avoid those initial spikes that many lights have. But I agree that they would match in output after some time but probably later than just after 5-10 minutes. 



MattK said:


> One of the things we've found with most of the other multi-emitter lights is that they don't have the proper thermal mass to maintain their output. The MVP was carefully designed so as to properly match it's thermal capabilities with it's drive current/heat generation. Also, we wanted to make it as bright as possible while maintaining efficiency (runtime) as there are diminishing returns on the Cree LED's past certain drive currents.



I've found that some lights have enough thermal mass but have very bad thermal path  https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2590634&postcount=126
Fortunately it is not the case for T700 or MVP. Both lights have some cooling fins and still run pretty hot on max level but not dangerously hot. I didn't notice any unexpected drop in output or change in tint during runtimes.




MattK said:


> Did you have any thoughts on comparative fit and finish? User interface?
> 
> As we often say; output is just one measure of a light but there is so much more that goes into defining a flashlight than just total initial output.



MVP has thicker walls and overall is more rugged. T700 is more subtle and longer with 3x18650 extension (as long as 3D Mag) and might be too long for someone. Fit and finish is good, I would say similar to fenix lights. Except the lens that probably doesn't have AR coating. It has two small side buttons for changing levels. They are little bit stiff and 8 levels is maybe too much. Good think is that you don't have to cycle through strobe level.

I absolutely agree that brightness is not everything and I've never said something different


----------



## MattK (Aug 18, 2008)

It would be interesting to see a T700/MVP output/runtime overlay....


----------



## jirik_cz (Aug 20, 2008)

When I will have them again I will make a timelapse video with both lights running next to each other.


----------



## Gary123 (Aug 30, 2008)

I'd really like to see a comparison of this light with Wolf Eyes' Thunder. I don't know why the Thunder never took off.


----------



## MattK (Oct 13, 2008)

Any chance of that video happening jirik?


----------



## EngrPaul (Oct 13, 2008)

I was using mine to spot 6 deer across the field. :devil: Next time I take my camera/tripod with me. 

I only have one complaint about this light. To change the batteries properly (at the tailcap, not removing the lanyard ring), you have to TURN and TURN and TURN. Good thing the batteries last so long :thumbsup:


----------



## jirik_cz (Oct 14, 2008)

MattK said:


> Any chance of that video happening jirik?



Sorry, I've already planned to do it. But my friend had some problems so hopefully next month.


----------



## MattK (Oct 14, 2008)

Ack - sorry to hear about your friend!

I think this can wait.


----------



## EngrPaul (Oct 25, 2008)

This light doesn't seem to have any competition, except maybe it's own brother P7. Good job, LumaPower!


----------



## Phaserburn (Oct 25, 2008)

SB, any chance you will be doing a P7 Turbo comparison? I'm on the fence as to which one of these fine lights to get.


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 25, 2008)

Phaserburn said:


> SB, any chance you will be doing a P7 Turbo comparison? I'm on the fence as to which one of these fine lights to get.


It's on its way to me ... I'll do a full comparison to the MVP.


----------



## EngrPaul (Oct 25, 2008)

Just a side note, the MVP will not take a flat-topped R18650. The cell must have a small (+) nipple to interface with the (+) electrode on the MVP head.

For instance, a Trustfire unprotected cell will not make contact. No light!


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 25, 2008)

EngrPaul said:


> Just a side note, the MVP will not take a flat-topped R18650. The cell must have a small (+) nipple to interface with the (+) electrode on the MVP head.


Good point Paul. However, all my older flatp-top AW protected 18650's would make contact with the head - but I needed to use a magnet to connect the second battery to the first. Not recommended for actual usage (magnets can slip and short!) - stick with button top cells.


----------



## HKJ (Oct 25, 2008)

EngrPaul said:


> Just a side note, the MVP will not take a flat-topped R18650. The cell must have a small (+) nipple to interface with the (+) electrode on the MVP head.
> 
> For instance, a Trustfire unprotected cell will not make contact. No light!



Just get a small magnet and put on the + pole of the battery, your can get the magnet from DX for nearly no money (less than $3 for 20).


----------



## MattK (Oct 25, 2008)

Eric - did you get the new lights yet?

BTW folks, I never recommend the magnet on battery solution as I'm always concerned it could slip and cause a direct short. Now if you Krazy glue the magnet in place then I'd be just fine with that.


----------



## EngrPaul (Oct 25, 2008)

Thanks for the magnet idea, friends. It worked!

The inside of the tube appears to be anodized well, so the chance for a short is small, I would think


----------



## HKJ (Oct 25, 2008)

MattK said:


> BTW folks, I never recommend the magnet on battery solution as I'm always concerned it could slip and cause a direct short. Now if you Krazy glue the magnet in place then I'd be just fine with that.



If the magnet slips, the coating on the inside of the battery tube has a hole and the protection in the battery fails, your get an explosion!


----------



## EngrPaul (Oct 25, 2008)

My solution: a donut of foam tape (sticky on the battery side) around a smaller magnet: ends up being about as tall as a protected 18650. I tested, it works great in the MVP and the charger. :twothumbs

Left: Protected cell. Center: Final assembly. Right: Parts used.


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 25, 2008)

EngrPaul said:


> My solution: a donut of foam tape (sticky on the battery side) around a smaller magnet: ends up being about as tall as a protected 18650.


Interesting solution Paul. Certainly a lot better than bare magnets, which I think are just too dangerous for regular use on their own.



MattK said:


> Eric - did you get the new lights yet?


Tracking shows them arrived in Canada, awaiting customs clearance.


----------



## Phaserburn (Nov 3, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> It's on its way to me ... I'll do a full comparison to the MVP.


 
Any news/impressions on the Turboforce?


----------



## jirik_cz (Nov 3, 2008)

Do you know what will happen when you forget that MVP can't take 4xRCR123 batteries and you will use them? Yeah, the driver will fry 

Well at least it opportunity to make real MVP Turboforce with 3xMC-E :naughty: Custom heatsink is already in production...


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 3, 2008)

Phaserburn said:


> Any news/impressions on the Turboforce?


The MVP-P7 is currently undergoing lightbox testing - my review should be up by the end of the week.
:wave:


----------



## Phaserburn (Nov 4, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> The MVP-P7 is currently undergoing lightbox testing - my review should be up by the end of the week.
> :wave:


 
Great and thanks. I'm looking forward to it.

:thumbsup:


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 8, 2008)

Lumapower MVP TurboForce P7 review is now up. 

Includes a direct comparison to the MVP 3xCree. :wave:


----------



## Jamesmark72 (Nov 21, 2008)

Mine just arrived today. I originally bought this for possibly replacing what the local Sheriff department currently uses. I agree that the build quality is excellent. This thing really goes together SMOOTH and solid. No burrs on mine. However, after doing several real world tests of trying to blind people, it's just not going to work. I can easily hold my eyes open to it even at 5 feet. It's not pleasant, but doable. My DBS seems alot brighter (when hit in the face). The strobe is the best i've seen so far. This would be ideal for a foot chase or when needing to check those dark areas. I will definately keep this just because i think also that the head is just an absolute work of art-real clean work.


----------



## MattK (Nov 22, 2008)

What is the Sheriff's department using currently?

Have you tried trying to look into the MVP with night adjusted eyes? 
From past experience I can tell you that you can look into a 3000+ lumen light - not pleasent but doable. 
The MVP is a lot brighter than a DBS but the DBS's single large reflector will collect the light into a tighter beam so it can make a single brighter spot but's it's light output is less than 1/2 that of the MVP.


----------



## Jamesmark72 (Nov 22, 2008)

Streamlight Ultra Stinger.


----------



## MattK (Nov 22, 2008)

Do you find the Ultra Stinger more blinding? 
I'm wondering if the single point of light of an MVP P7 might be better suited to your needs...


----------



## Jamesmark72 (Nov 22, 2008)

I was thinking the same thing. I've never seen one in person, but im assuming the throw wont compare, being a P7. That was a concern. I've have alot of major players that i own and have sold over the years, but i really love this light. Just such a pleasant beam. I guess you have to be addicted though to appreciate that.


----------



## MattK (Nov 22, 2008)

The regular MVP has slightly more throw, the MVP P7 puts more light downrange at a shorter distance but over a wider area. At short range though it will probably be more dazzling because of the larger reflector.


----------



## Northwave (Dec 29, 2008)

Hello, I'm Danny. I am slowly but surley becoming addicted to flashlights. 

Anyway, I was wondering, will this beauty (MVP 3xCree/Turboforce P7) run on 1x18650 as depicted in photo #7 in the first post?


----------



## Kato (Dec 29, 2008)

Northwave said:


> Anyway, I was wondering, will this beauty (MVP 3xCree/Turboforce P7) run on 1x18650 as depicted in photo #7 in the first post?


 
That configuration is meant for the use of (2) RCR123A cells to meet the minimum voltage.

The MVP is a great light. I've been using it for several months now. :twothumbs


----------



## MattK (Dec 29, 2008)

Input voltage from 6.5-10V allows users to use a variety of battery types/combinations: 
2 x Li-Ion (16340, RCR123A, 17650, 17670 or 18650; 18650 recommended for longest runtime and highest output)
(4 x CR123A can be used on low and medium output modes for emergencies and backup and for up to 4 minutes on high)


----------



## FLT MEDIC (Jan 26, 2009)

1. Anybody else have the Conqueror MC3?

2. I'm looking for a light with a floody beam good for at least 100m but throws further than any P7 or MC-E light available today, including the DBS MC-E. The light should not be bigger than the DBS MC-E (its bezel not bigger than 45mm/1.77 inches and not longer than 170mm/7.00 inches).

3. Does the Conqueror MC3 reach at least 100m?

4. Is the MX Power 3*Cree Q5-WB 3-Mode 400-Lumen LED Flashlight (DX SKU 16144) a clone of the Conqueror MC3?

5. Many thanks in advance.


----------



## Northwave (Feb 2, 2009)

I received my MVP today from The Photon Shop UK, what an amazing light - I can highly recommend it to everyone who needs a powerful flashlight. Walking our dog in the woods in complete darkness is so much fun w/ this thing in my hand 

Many thanks to Rob @ Thephotonshop for the excellent service also.


----------



## EngrPaul (Mar 4, 2009)

Wanna see more inside? Follow this link:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/224920


----------



## LiteTheWay (Jun 1, 2009)

The Lumapower MVP is such an amazing light and so well made I am surprised we don't hear more about it on CPF.

Are we all focussed on single LED lights?


----------



## MattK (Jun 1, 2009)

Yah I wonder at that sometimes. The MVP is certainly playing at the same level of output and the construction is beautiful. Still a favorite of mine.


----------



## LiteTheWay (Jun 2, 2009)

Yeh - MVP 3 x Cree has the same nominal output ~700 lumens as the MC-E quad die and similar - but such better throw and really 'blinding' central spot.


----------



## HKJ (Jun 2, 2009)

7histology said:


> The Lumapower MVP is such an amazing light and so well made I am surprised we don't hear more about it on CPF.
> 
> Are we all focussed on single LED lights?



I did include it in my beamshoot with some of the never lights, it is a very solid light, but the output is a bit behind the new generation.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 2, 2009)

HKJ said:


> I did include it in my beamshoot with some of the never lights, it is a very solid light, but the output is a bit behind the new generation.


I agree it is a very study and well-made light, in both the 3XCree and TurboForce P7 configurations. But as HKJ pointed out, they are not quite as bright as some of the newer lights coming out. To wit:






However, it is possible that newer shipping MVP lights are higher output than the first batch I tested here. This review is 9 months old, after all.


----------

