# Malkoff M60 Q5



## Jay T (Dec 23, 2007)

What we have here is the Malkoff Devices M60 Q5. For those of you who don't know what a Malkoff Device is, well, it's a device built by a guy named Malkoff. Here is a picture.







It's a drop-in for Surefire lights, but, it looks a little different from other drop-ins. Rather than using a reflector this Malkoff guy decided to use an optical device in his Malkoff device.

For this test I installed in a Leef 2x18500 body. Firing it up sends out an impressive amount of light. On my sample the light was quite warm with a tint of yellow. There are some mild rings in the beam and if you look close they aren't perfectly symmetrical (very minor and you must look for it).

My multimeter says that .78 amps are being drawn from the two Li-ion cells.

For comparison here are some other lights I have running Li-ion cells.

A BOG premium plus draws .71 amps off of 2x17670s.
A P3D Q3 draws .47 amps from it's two RCR123s.
An ASP Triad .83 amps from two RCR123s.
Using only 1 18650 a Tiablo A8 Q5 pulls 1 amp even.

I used my simple "Saturday afternoon special" light box to get some idea of how the total light output from these lights measures up.

The Malkoff M60 measures 16.7 KLux
The Tiablo A8 .................11.3
BOG P+ ..........................8.1
Fenix P3D .......................12.3
the ASP Triad ..................9.3

Wow the M60 looks almost too powerful. Could there be something goofy about my lightbox? So I repeated the test by doing a straight ceiling bounce test with the meter on the sink. and got these results.

M60 ........ 32 Lux
A8 .......... 22 Lux
P3d Q5 .... 24 Lux

The exact same ratios as the lightbox test. The M60 does light up the whole room in a very nice way.

Now for some Beam Shots.

All shots were in manual mode, for the LEDs the WB was set to cloudy and for the incandescents it was tungsten.

First up the M60





Next the BOG P+





The ASP Triad





And the Fenix P3D Q5 smooth reflector.





Now for some of the incandescents
First a P91 running off of 2 17670 at 4.1 V each.





Next a ROP LE (2 18650s in a 2C LOP reflector)





All and all this a gosh darn nice device. I am surprised how this lil LED can go toe to toe with the P91 (could mine be sick?). I knew it would be bright, but, I am still surprised at how well it works. Worth every penny.


----------



## harddrive (Dec 23, 2007)

Thanks for that Jay T!

The Malkoff sure seems a lot warmer than the other LED lights. The beam seems to fade out with no defined outline like the other lights. Is that how it looks to the naked eye?


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Dec 23, 2007)

I have similar impressions of my M60. My old SF6P is now once again, after 10 years one of my best lights. It has a nice broad beam, slight un-symmetric ring things on a whitewall. But it is way better than the typical cree rings one gets from a reflector. In actual use it is very smooth. My color tint is generally warm. The warmest cree tint I have in my collection I think.
While it may not beat out my multi-emitter lights it is definitely putting a lot of lumens forward. 
:thumbsup: for Gene and his latest dropin!


----------



## Jay T (Dec 23, 2007)

harddrive said:


> Thanks for that Jay T!
> 
> The Malkoff sure seems a lot warmer than the other LED lights. The beam seems to fade out with no defined outline like the other lights. Is that how it looks to the naked eye?



Yep, it throws light everywhere. There is an outline to the beam, but, it is so wide that it doesn't show up well and it blends in with bounced light.


----------



## WadeF (Dec 23, 2007)

Thanks for the great review Jay T! Great pictures as always! I'm going to have to pick one of these up, especially now that they are Q5. Gene always pays attention to tint and I always get a nice warm/white tint with his products, which I like. That optic seems to really get a lot of the Q5's light out in an efficient manner, very impressive bounce box/cieling results!


----------



## Gene43 (Dec 23, 2007)

Wow 16,700 lux! Thanks for the wonderful comments. I really appreciate the feedback.

Gene


----------



## Jay T (Dec 23, 2007)

Just to clarify this was in my "Saturday Afternoon Special" Light box. My attempt to measure total light output.






Not to be confused with the 1 meter readings used by others to measure spot intensity. Same units, different tests.

If you take the reading I get for a Novatac 120, 7.7 and normalize that to be equal to 120 lumens (Novatac's are supposed to be somewhat accurate in their ratings). Then the boxes reading of 12.3 for the Fenix P3D Q5 would translate to 192 lumens. I think Chevrofreak registered 196 in his light box so I am might be in the ballpark.

Now this Malkoff Device registered 16.7 in the box which translates to over 250 lumens! Let me stress THIS IS NOT AN EXACT MEASUREMENT. My number relies on my Novatac being a true 120 and the double check with my Fenix be close in performance to the one Chevrofreak used. Please don't go quoting this approximation in other threads.

Any way I think this little bugger might be on steroids.


----------



## Icebreak (Dec 23, 2007)

Jay T -

Did you write this review just for me? 

I'm going to order new primaries for my just arrived Z3 with P91. The density of the light in the P91's beam did not seem as intense as the Malkoff M60. I prefer incandescent light for many scenarios but extreme intensity for the purposes I'm using the Z3 for is a highly desired quality which the M60 delivers.

In a ceiling bounce test against an older, first run Elektrolumens TriStar using 3 X Luxeon III stars the M60 wins. The EL TriStar is overdriven with 4 fresh C cells. The results of this comparison were unexpected.

According to mdcod's compatability chart:

Cell configuration: 2x17670

SF P91: 20W, 330 - 175 lumen in 31 minutes

I'm going to guess that there's nothing wrong with your P91. If the beam were collimated tighter the density of photons would be greater resulting in the image return being closer to the level if image return we are seeing from the M60's beam.

I'm glad I passed on other lights and got the M60. Very nice color.

Thanks for the review. It's exactly what I wanted to see.


----------



## Alan B (Dec 23, 2007)

I like your integrating ice chest. Great idea.

There is a lighting lab where I work, and I know the engineering technician there. We were recently talking about integrating spheres, of which they have several. One thing that he mentioned is they have a baffle preventing direct light from the source striking the detector. I can't tell if you have done this, but if not the direct spill beam may throw the results off. Might be worth trying.

I have wondered if, for flashlight tests we might want the detector and the source to be adjacent to each other. This is similar to the way we use flashlights, and it would prevent direct light. Similar in a way to the ceiling test.

Thanks for your effort, and great beamshot photos!

-- Alan


----------



## Jay T (Dec 24, 2007)

Alan B said:


> I like your integrating ice chest. Great idea.
> 
> There is a lighting lab where I work, and I know the engineering technician there. We were recently talking about integrating spheres, of which they have several. One thing that he mentioned is they have a baffle preventing direct light from the source striking the detector. I can't tell if you have done this, but if not the direct spill beam may throw the results off. Might be worth trying.



I do have a piece of photo paper mounted just above the light cell to prevent direct impact, however, it is not 100% opaque so it will transmit some light. Perhaps when I set up version 2.0 I'll use some foil.

One thing I am not sure about is where I mounted the light cell, down low where it can "see" where the hot spot hits. I don't know if it should be higher up so it can only "see" the bounced light.


----------



## Alan B (Dec 24, 2007)

Hard to say for certain. Might be worth looking into how the commercial ones are built.

I will add that I am enjoying a new M60L (my first Malkoff Device). More than half the lumen output and three times the runtime of the M60. Really nice, and works well in my very old 6P. It is the same hardware as the M60, just set to 500mA instead of 1000mA. Would be really terrific if there was a user selection between the currents on this module!!

I may just make an integrator like yours, but I have to find my Minolta digital lightmeter or get something new. How do you like that meter? I think I have a DVM from that company. Sure looks familiar.

Good work!

-- Alan


----------



## Jay T (Dec 24, 2007)

Alan B said:


> I may just make an integrator like yours, but I have to find my Minolta digital lightmeter or get something new. How do you like that meter? I think I have a DVM from that company. Sure looks familiar.
> 
> Good work!
> 
> -- Alan



I'll admit my box is a hack and may have some design defects, If you want something better look at what Chevrofreak built. He has some pics here. https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/144407&highlight=chevrofreak+globe


----------



## Alan B (Dec 24, 2007)

Jay T said:


> I'll admit my box is a hack and may have some design defects, If you want something better look at what Chevrofreak built. He has some pics here. https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/144407&highlight=chevrofreak+globe


 
Nice! Where does one find what appears to be a spherical styrofoam ball like that??

-- Alan


----------



## Jay T (Dec 24, 2007)

Alan B said:


> Nice! Where does one find what appears to be a spherical styrofoam ball like that??
> 
> -- Alan



It's a globe of the earth.


----------



## Alan B (Dec 24, 2007)

Jay T said:


> It's a globe of the earth.


 
That is what it looked like but I don't recall globes being made of styrofoam, guess I should look at a new one...

The ice chest is still a great idea. Available, inexpensive, and I suspect pretty accurate once calibrated and configured right.

Thanks,

-- Alan


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 27, 2007)

You'd probably be better off with the sensor mounted up higher on the box. You don't want any light shining directly onto the sensor, it needs to be reflected and diffused light (that's why white is used, it diffuses the light as it reflects it).

My sphere has a baffle between the input port and sensor port to make sure that all light that reaches the sensor is diffused and not direct exposure.

If you can put a light into the input port and move shining it in at all different angles and the light measurement doesn't change by more than 5% then you've come up with a pretty good device.


----------



## sgt253 (Dec 27, 2007)

Just received mine from the Post Office. Man, I love this drop in. I can "see" what all the fuss is about. Positively shames an incandescent P60 bulb. Go Gene! Thank you for your efforts.


----------



## BugOutGear_USA (Dec 27, 2007)

JayT,

I noticed that in your shoot out you're using our Prem Plus (Cree P4 drop-in). Shoot me an email and I'll send you our Super Premium (Q5) drop in module for a fair/better comparison.

Thanks,
Flavio
BugoutGearUSA.com


----------



## Jay T (Dec 28, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> You'd probably be better off with the sensor mounted up higher on the box. You don't want any light shining directly onto the sensor, it needs to be reflected and diffused light (that's why white is used, it diffuses the light as it reflects it).
> 
> My sphere has a baffle between the input port and sensor port to make sure that all light that reaches the sensor is diffused and not direct exposure.
> 
> If you can put a light into the input port and move shining it in at all different angles and the light measurement doesn't change by more than 5% then you've come up with a pretty good device.



I do have a piece of photo paper over the sensor blocking direct hits from the light, however it is somewhat translucent. while playing around with my P3D my readings were 
Straight down 12.3
High (aimed at sensor) 13.0 (+6%)
Lowest reading 11.9 (-3%)

I added a piece of Al foil over top of the photopaper and it seems to work a little better.

(Look at that fine workmanship, all the quality of a Yugo)





Now 
Normal 12.2
Highest 12.5 
Lowest 11.9

I called this thing the "Saturday Afternoon Special Lightbox" because it was supposed to be a throw away.


----------



## WadeF (Dec 28, 2007)

My M60 Q5 arrived today. I really like it. The optic gives it a different kind of beam than what I'm used to. It has a nice intense hot spot. The LUX readings are comparable to my Fenix T1 for the hot spot. The thing that is interesting is the spill. Is has a lot of spill, and the edges of the beam aren't very defined, it just kinda floods out from the hot spot. 

The one thing I noticed is the corona, around the hot spot, is brighter on one half. Maybe up to the optic not being aligned perfectly. I don't see it as being a problem, just something I noticed. 

I really like the new M60 and it's is an improvement over the M60 Q2 I had before that was reflector based. I'm getting the best LUX readings with fresh AW R123's.


----------



## harddrive (Dec 29, 2007)

WadeF,

Have you got one of the Dereelight Q5 drop ins driven at 1.2A? If so how would compare the output of the Malkoff Q5 compared to the Dereelight?

Thanks


----------



## WadeF (Dec 29, 2007)

harddrive said:


> WadeF,
> 
> Have you got one of the Dereelight Q5 drop ins driven at 1.2A? If so how would compare the output of the Malkoff Q5 compared to the Dereelight?
> 
> Thanks


 
As far as total lumen output, I haven't had a chance to test that. What I do know is I can get a higher LUX reading with my CL1H with a smooth reflector and a Dereelight pill, such as the Q5 1.2A. I usually get around 9,100-9,300LUX. With the Malkoff I get around 6,500LUX (fully charged AW R123's), which is comparable to the Fenix T1. However, the Malkoff M60 has more spill, which is a neat feature of the optic, so a lot of the lumens are being used in the spill, rather than being tightly focused into the hot spot like the CL1H with a smooth reflector. So it all depends on what you want. 

Also with the CL1H and a textured reflector I get around 6,400LUX, which again is in the ball park of the M60 and the Fenix T1 as far as the intensity of the hot spot. The M60 has more spill than either, at least it does when it's in my SF G2.


----------



## harddrive (Dec 29, 2007)

Thanks WadeF :thumbsup:


----------



## X Racer (Jan 1, 2008)

The website says that these are sold out. I hope more will be available soon.


----------



## WadeF (Jan 1, 2008)

X Racer said:


> The website says that these are sold out. I hope more will be available soon.


 
Gene Malkoff left his regular job to take on his Malkoff Devices business fulll time. Sign up for his email updates as he adds products on a regular basis now and the email will alert you when he restocks.


----------



## LEDcandle (Mar 4, 2008)

Jay T said:


> Just to clarify this was in my "Saturday Afternoon Special" Light box. My attempt to measure total light output.



Just my personal opinion about DIY Liteboxes (not that mine is any better! =P) 






- I think the sensor should be as far out of the way of any direct light as possible to minimize inaccuracies due to direct light (on the same side as light source should be the furthest possible? )

- The 'hole' for the light should be able to accommodate different size lights 

- The 'hole' should have some sort of way of 'mounting' all lights the same way. Otherwise, some lights may be inserted deeper than others, resulting in more light into the box. Some may not be centered, resulting in more light towards the sensor (esp when the sensor is not out of the way)

- Diffusing the light source supposedly gives more 'equal' light into the box. Otherwise, you will tend to notice higher lux lights (throwers) will get higher readings than flooders, because of intense hotspots. It is a "lux" meter after all 

Just my 2 cents!!


----------

