# Fenix L0D-Q4 Comparison Review



## UnknownVT (Jan 31, 2008)

Got this Fenix Digital L0D Q4 OLIVE courtesy of 4sevens at the Fenix-Store.

The Q4 L0D is rated on plain alkaline or NiMH AAA at 75 lumens on its High/max - this is almost "ridiculous" for a single AAA light.

Size, new anodized Color, and Heads -









The Olive anodization looks nice -it's not that obviously green - but almost like a grey with green overtones?

It isn't that obvious in the photo - but the Q4 has a plain reflector -whereas both the L0D-RB80 and the L1Dce-Q5 have orange peel reflectors.

The L0D-RB80 is rated at 60 lumens for its max so the Q4 version at 75 lumens is 25% brighter - can one see this?

vs. Fenix L0D-RB80 both on NiMH (AAA eneloop), and High/Max -







Fairly obviously yes - the Q4 version has a more concentrated beam which also helps showing this to be brighter.

Notice the Rebel RB80 edition has a much smoother beam, and its tint is slightly better (still a bit cool for my liking). 

I was a bit surprised to see the notorious Cree dark halo on the Q4, and the beam was a bit ringy - I thought the plain Fenix L0D-CE didn't have much of those problems .......

Is the Low on the Q4 L0D the same as the Low on the RB80?







No, it's about the same magnitude brighter similar to the High/max comparison.

(please remember these are comparison beamshots and are only valid for the beams in the same photo, and not comparable between separate photos - it's pretty obvious the beamshot of the L0Ds on Low is not comparable to the L0Ds on High - since the two beamshots look almost the same!)

This is a case of when brighter is not necessarily better - since most people want a low that would disturb less, attract less attention - so a lower/dimmer low mode would be better - but the difference isn't that large that one need to complain.

Compare to a 1x AA light -

vs. Fenix L1D-Q5 both on NiMH and max/High/Turbo -







Not surprisningly a Q5 and a beefier battery would be brighter.

BUT note the Q5 L1D is rated at 120 lumens on Turbo - this is supposed to be 60% brighter - pretty significant. 
The Q5 without a doubt is brighter - but is that obvious in the beamshots? (and camera is more critical in being able to show differences) 

vs. L1D-Q5 both on Low -







again about the same magitude brighter similar to the max/High/Turbo comparison.

The Q5's tint is a bit nicer - but both show the dark halo and are a bit ringy - this is despite the orange peel reflector on the Q5, and the reflector that hides the silver colored (aluminum?) surround on the Q4.

The L0D-Q4 is a real pocket rocket - 75 lumens - only a few years ago this was strived for on a premium Luxeon III or even V and then only using lithium batteries .....

Now we can have 75 lumens on a single humble AAA battery - but also with multi-levels of brightness - 
so the light is not only brighter - but more versatile.


----------



## powernoodle (Jan 31, 2008)

It is fun to recall how this much light from this small a package was impossible not so long ago. The LOD Q4 is one of my favorites.

A+ on the review as usual.


----------



## ViReN (Jan 31, 2008)

> The L0D-RB80 is rated at 60 lumens for its max so the Q4 version at 75 lumens is 25% brighter - can one see this?
> 
> vs. Fenix L0D-RB80 both on NiMH (AAA eneloop), and High/Max -



Hey Nice Review :thumbsup:
On second screen shot the Rebel version looks brighter..


----------



## UnknownVT (Jan 31, 2008)

ViReN said:


> On second screen shot the Rebel version looks brighter..


 
If you mean the -2 Stops Underexposed beamshot of the L0D Q4 and RB80 both on High -

I think the slight tint difference may be biassing the brightness comparison.

Here's the same shot merely with the color removed (by desaturation) -





Looks to me that the Q4 has a brighter side-spill, and its hotspot is smaller but more concentrated/brighter?


----------



## chibato (Jan 31, 2008)

Thank you for the review. I really like seeing the new color contrasted with natural.


----------



## matrixshaman (Jan 31, 2008)

Nice review as always! With all the great reviews all along of the L0D-CE I've really wanted to get one for a long time but was trying to hold off since I didn't want to buy any more Fenix until they got the circuits to work on low and medium with rechargeable Li-ions (like on the P1D-CE and P2D's) but I finally gave in for an L0D-CE when the black Q4's came out. And while this is a bit different than a light made to run on 3.0 volt like the P1D and P2D's it seems that it has a reputation for being okay on both 1.5 volt, 1.2 volt and 3.6 volt Li-Ions. Now much to my surprise and great delight not only is this a great little light on regular AAA's but it seems to not have the problem with a 10440 Li-Ion of no medium or low's like the other Fenix such as the P1D and P2D's. That was a real thrill and this thing deserves all the rave reviews I've heard and especially the new Q4 as it's an incredible amount of light for such a tiny light - a real WOW light for sure.


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 1, 2008)

matrixshaman said:


> it seems that it has a reputation for being okay on both 1.5 volt, 1.2 volt and 3.6 volt Li-Ions. Now much to my surprise and great delight not only is this a great little light on regular AAA's but it seems to not have the problem with a 10440 Li-Ion of no medium or low's like the other Fenix such as the P1D and P2D's.


 
The reason as you've probably figured out is that the current regulated circuit in the regular P1D, P2D, L1D (and L2D) is by-passed when the input voltage exceeds the Vf - so in effect the lights are direct driven when using 3.7V Li-Ion rechargeable - hence no lower levels until the voltage drops to below the Vf (by that time it's nearly depleted anyway)

The L0D works differently since the lower levels are obtained by PWM (pulse wave modulation).

PWM is obviously a huge advantage when using a 3.7V Li-Ion rechargeable 10440 battery - as the lower levels are still there.

But the disadvantages are:
less efficient than a true current regulated circuit (like in the L1D, L2D, P1D, P2D), 
and a lot of people are sensitive to the "strobing" effect of PWM - personally, I think it's cool......


----------



## lumenal (Feb 1, 2008)

Nice review - the output for this light is amazing!

Regarding the new olive anodizing:

Are there any noticeable flaws?

How does it look on the flat parts of the body tube?


----------



## NA8 (Feb 1, 2008)

Nice review. I bet those guys who scored one of the rare rebel 100 LOD's are sitting pretty.


----------



## swxb12 (Feb 1, 2008)

Another nice comparison, Vincent. I really like that olive finish. Any chance at providing one of your famous stairway shots of the L0D Q4 on 10440 vs the RB80 on 10440? Thanks in advance, in any case.


----------



## roymail (Feb 1, 2008)

Any actual or estimated runtime using standard Duracell/Energizer type cells? Looks like a great light for my wife's purse. Thanks.


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 1, 2008)

roymail said:


> Any actual or estimated runtime using standard Duracell/Energizer type cells? Looks like a great light for my wife's purse. Thanks.


 
I can't do runtimes - but according to Fenix on their page on the L0D-Q4 -

"_25 Lumens (3.5hrs) -> 9 Lumens (8.5hrs) -> 75 Lumens (1hrs_)"

Also Chevrofreak does really good runtime graphs - 
not the Q4 version - but since the circuit is the same, the runtimes probably should be similar -

Fenix L0D CE runtimes


----------



## matrixshaman (Feb 1, 2008)

UnknownVT - Thanks for explaining that. I knew they were being direct driven and that causes the loss of low level but was not clear that there was that kind of tradeoff between PWM and using rechargeables. Aren't there lights that still can have very low outputs on rechargeables and not have the PWM issue? HDS, Novatac and NiteCore come to mind in that I don't think they have any noticeable PWM but they work fine on Li-Ion 3.6 volt batteries. 
Either way this Fenix is a great light and I don't mind the PWM on it that much but I wish Fenix could eliminate the loss of low in it's other lights. However my wallet seems happy they have not fixed this


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 1, 2008)

matrixshaman said:


> Aren't there lights that still can have very low outputs on rechargeables and not have the PWM issue? HDS, Novatac and NiteCore come to mind in that I don't think they have any noticeable PWM but they work fine on Li-Ion 3.6 volt batteries.


 
It's simply the current regulating circuit design - the regular 3volt Fenix circuits were designed to boost the Vin from supplies (ie: batteries) that were below the Vf - and it is by-passed when the Vin exceeds the Vf - to become direct driven.

Some circuits are designed to lower Vin to Vf - these are normally for lights that use 2x CR123 (ie: 6 volt circuits) 
- it's fairly unusual to have a circuit do both - boost and lower the Vin.

All three of the lights you cited HDS, Novatac and NiteCore - as far as I can tell doing a search here on CPF do use PWM - the reason why they are not as noticable is probably because they use much higher pulsing frequencies (and/or more sophisticated(?) PWM).

In a round-about way there is a Fenix that does not have that problem.

The P3D has a true current regulated circuit - 
and can run on a single 3.7V Li-Ion rechargeable and retain its lower levels. (but it cannot run on just 3Volts - eg: single CR123A).

So since the P3D head will fit either the P2D or L1D bodies - 
one can use a single 3.7V Li-Ion rechargeable RCR123, or 14500 respectively......

clever huh?


----------



## jbviau (Feb 1, 2008)

Nice review! Re: the finish, I thought I'd add a few pics of my own olive LOD Q4 since someone asked. In a nutshell, I'm happy with the color and the finish. If I'm being picky, the Fenix logo (white paint in engraved cut-away, I think) could be more clearly defined, and there's some spiderwebbing (like thin lighter lines) in the anodizing on the flat parts (hard to see in some pics). But really, this is a great light. Thumbs up for the olive Q4 version!

p.s. Strange but true: The spiderwebbing I mentioned is much more noticeable under fluorescent lights like I have at work compared to at home, where I barely notice it. Not sure why...

Full view
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/jbviau/IMG_2470.jpg

Logo detail
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/jbviau/IMG_2469.jpg

Serial number
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/jbviau/IMG_2464.jpg

Flat detail 1
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/jbviau/IMG_2467.jpg

Flat detail 2
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/jbviau/IMG_2462.jpg

Flat detail 2 (under fluorescent lights at work)
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/jbviau/IMG_2483.jpg

Tailcap
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/jbviau/IMG_2463.jpg

Head 1
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/jbviau/IMG_2468.jpg

Head 2
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/jbviau/IMG_2466.jpg

Color (compared to black pen and silver knife sharpener)
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/jbviau/IMG_2471.jpg

Size (compared to L92 AAA battery)
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj72/jbviau/IMG_2473.jpg


Over sized images removed


----------



## Flic (Feb 1, 2008)

Thanks for the pics jbviau, I'm still waiting for mine to arrive. Though I haven't got my Q4 yet, I have seen the same type of shabby looking engraving on a couple of other Fenix lights (funny they were both premium lights). The engraving on the P3D Prem Rb100s I have (both from 4sevens initial batch) as well as the P3D Q5 olive I got recently (again from the initial lot) looked awful! My olive L2D Q5 was better but far from perfect. None of my "regular" Fenix lights have the problem. Poor details like that really cheapen the initial impression of a top notch light. I wonder if this is not related to their moving anodizing in-house and therefore possibly the engraving as well???


----------



## IsaacHayes (Feb 1, 2008)

The anodize looks like good ole true HA natural. Like arc or sf color. Nice!!!!

The metal ring on the cree is silver plated copper.

Put that L1D head on a L2D body to fully unleash the Q5!


----------



## Sir Lightalot (Feb 1, 2008)

my olive lod arrived a few days ago and it has the "spiderwebbing". i think it looks more like the grains in wood which looks really nice IMO. it gives the finish a natural look.:thumbsup:

Edit: ah, now i see what you meant by the flat parts. i was talking about the round parts.:tinfoil:


----------



## Nitroz (Feb 1, 2008)

This little light is becoming harder and harder to resist. And now that it comes in the Olive color, I don't think I can stand it any longer.:hairpull:


----------



## lumenal (Feb 2, 2008)

jbviau said:


> Nice review! Re: the finish, I thought I'd add a few pics of my own olive LOD Q4 since someone asked. In a nutshell, I'm happy with the color and the finish. If I'm being picky, the Fenix logo (white paint in engraved cut-away, I think) could be more clearly defined, and there's some spiderwebbing (like thin lighter lines) in the anodizing on the flat parts (hard to see in the pics). But really, this is a great light. Thumbs up for the olive Q4 version!
> 
> p.s. Strange but true: The spiderwebbing I mentioned is much more noticeable under fluorescent lights like I have at work compared to at home, where I barely notice it. Not sure why...


 
Thanks for responding jbviau and Sir LightAlot - I noticed the "spider-webbing" also, but _only_ on the flat parts of the body tube.

The olive anodize is a great color for a great light. :thumbsup:


----------



## ViReN (Feb 2, 2008)

UnknownVT said:


> If you mean the -2 Stops Underexposed beamshot of the L0D Q4 and RB80 both on High -
> 
> I think the slight tint difference may be biassing the brightness comparison.
> 
> ...


:thumbsup:Thanks


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 3, 2008)

swxb12 said:


> Any chance at providing one of your famous stairway shots of the L0D Q4 on 10440 vs the RB80 on 10440?


 
But of course.....

It was just a matter of time......

time of day, or rather, night, that is 

Fenix L0D-Q4 vs. L0D-RB80 - both on 3.7V Li-Ion 10440 -








Color DeSaturated comparison 
with the L0D-RB80 also on 3.7V Li-Ion 10440 
and the other two brightest performers so far -














Close, but I think the L0D-Q4 looks just a bit brighter than the L0D-RB80 both on 3.7V Li-Ion 10440 - although the RB80 version spreads its light out more and has a smoother beam.
But it does not look as bright as the T1 or the P3D-Q5 - although again the different distribution of light could make measurements different than this visual/"look-see" comparison.


----------



## Nitroz (Feb 3, 2008)

Excellent shots!

That is amazing that the little LOD Q4 has a hotspot like that from such a small reflector.

Do you have any outdoor shots?


----------



## Patriot (Feb 4, 2008)

I thought I was the only one goofy enough to try the 10440 in an RB80. Great beam shots. The desaturated images do give a different perspective. I like them. Thanks for the comparisons...:thumbsup:


----------



## gesteenbergen (Feb 4, 2008)

I`ve had about five lod q4`s. The one i like the most i kept, and the rest i past on to friends. It seems that the difference in output between the q4`s can be greater than the difference i see in this topic between a q4 and a rb80.
I ordered a new Olive lod q4. I`m curious about the possible differences. hope i like it better. I know the olive suites me better


----------



## jbviau (Feb 4, 2008)

Like those 10440 beamshots! Maybe I'll try that battery out one of these days.

Update: One pic has been added to my post #15 in an attempt to capture what I called spiderwebbing on the flat part of the light. It's a little easier to see than it was before (orange background), but still not great. 

Update 2: Now it's much easier to see (Flat detail 2).

Again, this is a minor, superficial detail that nevertheless some members might want to know about. I have no idea whether it's related to Fenix doing their own anodizing now. Have similar "finish flaws" been seen in previous LOD colors like black, red, or natural?


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 4, 2008)

jbviau said:


> Update: One pic has been added to my post #15 in an attempt to capture what I called spiderwebbing on the flat part of the light. It's a little easier to see than it was before (orange background), but still not great.


 
I didn't even know what to look for until the photos - even then I could not see any flaws even with a magnifying glass.

However here are two photos legend side and the opposite side - these shows about 158% life-size on my monitor -










the second photo does seem to show what might be very feint "spider-webbing" -
but I still cannot see it in real-life even with a magnifying glass......


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 4, 2008)

I _WANT_ one of these after experiecing an older LOP SE...

I *WANT* one!!!


----------



## Illum (Feb 4, 2008)

jbviau said:


> Logo detail



interesting...I bought the black version and the white logo is actually pretty solid in the middle...this of course does not alter the lights performance so its only judged on the basis of user preference 

I took some shots from mine...under the illumination of L4 the shots came out better than expected




















Excellent review UnknownVT as usual!
boy...had I known theres going to be an oliver version I'd buy that instead


----------



## jbviau (Feb 5, 2008)

Wow, talk about close-ups!

UnknownVT, I see what you mean by "faint." There's nothing to complain about in the pics of your lights. Your logo looks like mine in that it's not as solid white as the one above.


----------



## IMSabbel (Feb 5, 2008)

Hm. I think i could understand why a RB80 is brighter than the Q4 with 10440s. 
In direct drive, the lower V of the rebels would just drain the battery harder.

Any current meassurements to compare those two?


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 5, 2008)

IMSabbel said:


> Hm. I think i could understand why a RB80 is brighter than the Q4 with 10440s.
> In direct drive, the lower V of the rebels would just drain the battery harder.
> Any current meassurements to compare those two?


 
You really think the RB80 version is brighter than the Q4? -
to my eyes it's the other way round.........

Anyway current draw measurements using 3.7V Li-Ion rechargeable 10440 -

................. Med ...... Low ...... High
L0D-Q4 ...... 0.37A ... 0.14A ... 1.08A
L0D-RB80 ... 0.34A ... 0.12A ... 1.00A


----------



## IMSabbel (Feb 5, 2008)

Ok, i took a closer look again, and its hard to compare because of the different beam pattern, but yeah, the RB80 doesnt seem to be brighter. 
My bad.

Although of course an RB80 could easily be a RB99, too. So there is no telling.


----------



## Illum (Feb 5, 2008)

jbviau said:


> Wow, talk about close-ups!


heh, my camera is privileged to have a "digital macro" capability which is sensitive enough to get shots of hairs on a horsefly's back [yes, I have a picture...somewhere:thinking:]

My L0D-CE eats whats left over from mom's mag solitaire...so not much "high" moments for me:shrug:
but hey...free [but used] batteries:naughty:

UnknownVT, those are some pretty high current draws for high. Would you happen to know how long can the Q4 version be on high using a 10440?


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 5, 2008)

Illum_the_nation said:


> those are some pretty high current draws for high. Would you happen to know how long can the Q4 version be on high using a 10440?


 
Yes... they are - but then the L0D is pretty astonishingly bright for a mere single AAA light albeit on a 3.76V Li-Ion rechargeable 10440 - so what do we expect? (1A at 3.7V direct drive is 3.7watts)

I don't have the means to do any sensible runtimes -
But Chevrofreak has this -

Fenix L0D CE runtimes 

although it's the plain P4(?) L0Dce - 
he has done runtimes with a 10440 - 
it was 10 min 23 secs to 50% on high......


----------



## jbviau (Feb 5, 2008)

Last post about the finish, I swear:

I finally brought my camera into work and was able to get a pic of what spiderwebbing looks like under typical fluorescent lighting. I added it to my post #15 above, and I'm copying it below.

See, I'm not crazy!  It's not at all subtle under the right conditions. This is a close-up, but you can see the lines clearly even when holding the light at arm's length. All six flat parts look like this to some degree, though this flat is the most extreme. 






I think it gives the light character, like the crackling in an old fresco. And now back to more serious issues...


----------



## Haz (Feb 5, 2008)

Are the Olive coating any harder or more wear resistance than the Black or Natural?.


----------



## lumenal (Feb 5, 2008)

jbviau said:


> Last post about the finish, I swear:
> 
> I finally brought my camera into work and was able to get a pic of what spiderwebbing looks like under typical fluorescent lighting. I added it to my post #15 above, and I'm copying it below.
> 
> ...


 
Hey, I think we have the same serial number! Whats up with that!? Must be a lot number instead.

OF COURSE the cosmetic flaws don't affect output, but I want to put my own character marks on my brand new light! 

My first thought when I opened the box to my new light was,"Wow, looks like someone carried this light with keys in their pocket." :thinking:

All the flat parts in the body tube look like your picture...


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 5, 2008)

jbviau said:


> Last post about the finish, I swear
> I think it gives the light character, like the crackling in an old fresco. And now back to more serious issues...


 
eh, I was quite enjoying the minutea -
Enlarged comparison shot -





Individual crops -













The individual pics are 6.25X (or 625%) life-size on my monitor.
There might just be some very faint spider-webbing on the olive Q4 (top pic) - but again I can't see it in real-life even with a magnifying glass.

However what I did notice looking at these greatly enlarged photos - was the olive Q4 version shows parallel grain like machining marks - whereas both the natural L0D-RB100 and black L0P-SE (harder to see, as it's black) seemed to have more of a bead-blast effect.


----------



## jbviau (Feb 6, 2008)

Haz, the olive version may be too new to say for sure which color wears better.

Lumenal, I read in another thread that the serial numbers are just country codes. Then again maybe they are combination country+color/dealer codes since Illum's code (post #29) has a different number after the US part. About your light, do the flaws become less visible (or even disappear) in natural light as they do on mine?

UnknownVT, well ok then! I didn't want to steer the thread too much away from output, etc. I see what you mean about the grain of the finish. 

Open question: Have any of you cleaned your threads and relubed? My threads are a little dry. Are you all using Nyogel?


----------



## Sir Lightalot (Feb 6, 2008)

lumenal said:


> Hey, I think we have the same serial number! Whats up with that!? Must be a lot number instead.



i've got the same serial number too... US844552 but its hard to see, like the anodizing wasn't lasered off all the way through...


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 6, 2008)

I sent an inquiry to Fenix Store and once it's answered a nice bright LOP will be on the way.


----------



## Illum (Feb 6, 2008)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> I sent an inquiry to Fenix Store and once it's answered a nice bright LOP will be on the way.



:thinking: last I remembered the L0P was discontinued :thinking:


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 6, 2008)

Righto! I just checked Fenix Store and should have left the post LOD instead of editing it to LOP.

Anyhow I shall have one soon!


----------



## jbviau (Feb 7, 2008)

Ha, well score one sale for the thread. Enjoy!


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 7, 2008)

The numbering on the L0D-Q4 olive -






L0D-RB80


----------



## jbviau (Feb 7, 2008)

Ok, so let's see what's wrong about serial numbers based on what I think we know:

1. They don't *only* indicate color (since both of Unknown's lights above are olive).
2. They don't *only* indicate flashlight model (since both of Unknown's lights are L0Ds)
3. They don't indicate *only* color+model (since both of Unknown's lights are olive L0Ds, differing only in the emitter)
4. They don't *only* indicate dealer (since I'm assuming Unknown bought both of the lights in the previous post from the same dealer...correct?)
5. They're not unique to individual lights (as is obvious in this thread since at least three of us have the same serial number on our olive L0D Q4s)

What live possibilities are we left with? One is the following:

a. Color+model+emitter (in no particular order...one number per combination)

But that wouldn't explain the US part at the beginning of the serial number. How about this?

b. Dealer's country+color+model+emitter?

The idea is that all olive L0D Q4s sold by Fenix-Store.com, for example, have the same serial numbers, and in contrast all olive L0D RB80s sold by the same dealer have a different serial number. These numbers would be different for the very same lights sold by fenixlight.ca out of Canada. Is this true?


----------



## jbviau (Feb 7, 2008)

Oops, I just remembered that Unknown's L0D RB80 is natural, not olive. So the serial numbers don't necessarily encode the emitter. In other words, (3) is wrong above. Here's my current best guess (replacing (b)):

c. Dealer's country+color+model


----------



## IMSabbel (Feb 7, 2008)

Maybe just something that includes production week, or the like?

Might be sensible for warranty reasons...


----------



## kts (Feb 7, 2008)

To add to the confusion.

My LOD Q4, got the same number as UnknownVTs.

My LOD P4 got the same number as my P2D Q5...


----------



## lumenal (Feb 7, 2008)

jbviau said:


> Lumenal, I read in another thread that the serial numbers are just country codes. Then again maybe they are combination country+color/dealer codes since Illum's code (post #29) has a different number after the US part. About your light, do the flaws become less visible (or even disappear) in natural light as they do on mine?
> 
> Open question: Have any of you cleaned your threads and relubed? My threads are a little dry. Are you all using Nyogel?


 
I think you're right about the number - its probably a lot number as opposed to an individual serial number.

The spider-webbing in the anodize is apparent in the natural light, especially when tilted a little.

Although the threads were fairly clean and lubed, I did it again. 
Just standard procedure when I get a new light. I just use isopropyl alcohol to clean the threads, silicone grease the o-ring, and then use a drop or two of "Precision Lube" on the threads. Its available at Radio Shack in a needle tip applicator for $3 or $4. (Sometimes I clean with a drop or two of DeOxit, and then a tiny dab of Pro Gold if theres a lot of gunk present on the contacts).

As this being my first LOD, I can see what everyone has been raving about. This is really a fantastic light.

Very small and lightweight, easily pocketable, and uses common AAA cells (NiMH or L92s for me). 

The sheer volume of light emitted on high is great - I can't imagine what a 10440 would do.


----------



## jbviau (Feb 7, 2008)

kts said:


> To add to the confusion.
> 
> My LOD Q4, got the same number as UnknownVTs.
> 
> My LOD P4 got the same number as my P2D Q5...



Wow, that *is* confusing.

Ok, re: serial numbers, found this thread: http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-179743.html

It seems all we can say with confidence for now is that US indicates a US dealer, i.e. the first two letters indicate the country of the dealer.

Lumenal, thanks for the cleaning tips...


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 8, 2008)

Talked to David at Fenix-Store and my Olive (could have had black) LOD Q4 should be here Monday!


----------



## jbviau (Feb 8, 2008)

That's exciting! Hopefully you'll let us know what you think of it (hint hint).


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 8, 2008)

OK we're all (at least I am) most impressed with the L0D on 3.7V Li-Ion rechargeable 10440.

BUT there is a possible _DOWN_side -
probably not any sudden deaths - 
but use of 10440 on High for sustained periods of time may possibly shorten the life of the LED.

All the L0D's I've tried 10440 with have gotten pretty warm - pretty quickly - 
I say warm because I never got it to Hot - so this may be a point in mitigation.

Check out this excellent review by Selfbuilt -

Jetbeam Jet-u and Fenix L0D-CE 1AAA shootout: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and TEMPERATURES

It's not the Q4 or RB80 version, but the plain CE (probably P4?) 
go down to the runtime and temperatures sections and understand why Selfbuilt didn't do a complete runtime on 10440 on High.......


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 8, 2008)

Doesn't matter to me what it does with Li-Ion. I expect it will be noticeably brighter than the LUX LOP SE I have now, and that's all I need it to be. 

The AAA light I carry is really back up to back up.

But to all you who HAVE to have it BRIGHT, good luck to you!


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 8, 2008)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> Doesn't matter to me what it does with Li-Ion. I expect it will be noticeably brighter than the LUX LOP SE I have now, and that's all I need it to be.
> The AAA light I carry is really back up to back up.
> But to all you who HAVE to have it BRIGHT, good luck to you!


 
Indeed the L0D-Q4 will be noticbly brighter in comparison - I didn't do a direct comparison with my L0P-SE "Special" (UWAJ mod) - but as we see the Q4 is slightly brighter than the RB80 version - and -




the RB80 is already noticably brighter than the L0P-SE "Special" (Lux3 UWAJ mod).

However the beauty of the L0D-Q4 or RB80 on 10440 is that it becomes very versatile with the lower levels - as a "backup" flashlight - 
but for short durations on High it can be one's bright flashlight too without having to carry another flashlight. 
(keep a photon and a spare NiMH AAA as real backup)


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 8, 2008)

Cool! I'll keep a Lithium L92 in it as that's the lightest it can be for neck carry, and it ain't my primary light except when dressing up.

Can't hardly wait!


----------



## regulator (Feb 8, 2008)

I received my olive LOD-CE Q4 yesterday and am very happy with it. I got a very nice white tint and the output is very nice. The medium output is really nice for the primary and the low gives a nice long runtime (from others tests).

I am really impressed with the beam on mine. The beam is actually very smooth with good throw and nice spill with barely any rings. If you look very closely at the reflector it is not pefectly smooth but rather very shiny with very small ripples. These may be smoothing out the beam ever so slightly and does a good job. I prefer Cree beam profiles to SSC profiles. Cree profiles seem more like the traditional with a spot surrounded by flood. The SCC kinda just transitions like a cone. But this is just my preference in beams. I am also looking forward to getting the new Liteflux LF2X with Cree Q5. My interest between these two will be how they compare in runtime when matched to the LOD's medium output.


----------



## jbviau (Feb 9, 2008)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> Cool! I'll keep a Lithium L92 in it as that's the lightest it can be for neck carry, and it ain't my primary light except when dressing up.
> 
> Can't hardly wait!



Do you do neck carry when dressing up? I'm imagining an L0D Q4 bolo tie or something


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 9, 2008)

No, it hides between my man boobs hanging from a decent gold chain.

And "dress up" really means wearing a nice shirt and slacks. No suit or Tux for me!


----------



## vincebdx (Feb 9, 2008)

Kd ssc vs Ultrafire WF-602C vs L0D Q4



 




 

 


Beamshots on a green wall.

I received my L0D Q4 last week.

With AAA 1.2V (Uniross hybrio):

*Power* : L0D Q4 > Kd ssc > Ultrafire WF-602C
*Throw* : L0D Q4 >= Kd ssc > Ultrafire WF-602C
*Quality* : L0D Q4 > Ultrafire WF-602C > Kd ssc
*Runtime* : L0D Q4 > Ultrafire WF-602C > Kd ssc
*Temperature (10mn)* : KD ssc > Ultrafire WF-602C > L0D Q4
*Price* : L0D Q4 > WF-602C > KD ssc

*KD ssc* : 0.92A
*WF-602C* : 1.14A
*L0D Q4* : High : 0.84A / Medium : 0.29A / Low : 0.12A

L0D Q4 is the best of three :twothumbs


----------



## regulator (Feb 9, 2008)

I got just about the same readings on my LOD: 830 - H, 290 - M, and 130 - L.


----------



## jbviau (Feb 9, 2008)

Favor: Could someone please explain briefly (or point me toward a thread that would explain) what those readings mean, i.e. why they're good? I'm new to this. Thanks in advance!


----------



## Marduke (Feb 9, 2008)

jbviau said:


> Favor: Could someone please explain briefly (or point me toward a thread that would explain) what those readings mean, i.e. why they're good? I'm new to this. Thanks in advance!



Which readings?

In general, brighter is better (duh), and the light that can be the brightest while using the least amount of power is the better light.


----------



## Illum (Feb 9, 2008)

I think regulators values are current draw in ma?


----------



## jbviau (Feb 9, 2008)

Illum_the_nation said:


> I think regulators values are current draw in ma?



Must be. Ok, got it. Thanks. I'll ignore Marduke's "duh"


----------



## Illum (Feb 10, 2008)

output or current draw would be my primary concerns if I was reading figures like this without their appropriate units

output would be in lux, couldn't possibly be in lumens
current draw is usually noted in milliamps, which I find logical since regulator was referring to an earlier post which uses Amps as the primary figures [decimals x 1000 = value in ma].


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 10, 2008)

I'm not asking the LOD Q4 to be a pocket rocket. All I want is somewhat brighter than old LUX LOP SE.

And it seems I'm getting it.

I'll likely use the starting point, medium the most.


----------



## regulator (Feb 10, 2008)

Yep - my values were miliamps at the various output levels (using an eneloop cell) and compare with what vincebdx got. 

I too am more interested in using the medium output mode and having the ability to go to a lower mode to extend runtime when needed. I think I will rarely use the high since if I need that much light I would have something with a larger cell to allow decent runtime. But it is nice to have for that rare occasion.

The light fills its use perfectly. I am really looking forward to getting the new Liteflux LF2X for comarisoin ( really like AAA lights). I hope that it matches the LOD in efficiency at the lower levels that will get the most use. I previously had a LF3 and like the UI and programmability.


----------



## jbviau (Feb 10, 2008)

One thing I've noticed is that it's hard to switch modes using only one hand without skipping a mode or two. With two hands I never have problems, but with one hand it's as if the light gets confused. This seems to be due to my failure to twist "all the way back on" with one hand after twisting off. Any tips on one-hand mode switches from you users with better manual dexterity? 

p.s. I'm not using grip tape or even the pocket clip--just index and thumb on the wimpy knurling.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 11, 2008)

I can't one hand the LOP SE very well either jbviau.

Definately something to be said for 1-mode twisty....

That said I like it and believe I'll love the LOD Q4 that should be here today or tomorrow.


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 11, 2008)

jbviau said:


> One thing I've noticed is that it's hard to switch modes using only one hand without skipping a mode or two. With two hands I never have problems, but with one hand it's as if the light gets confused. This seems to be due to my failure to twist "all the way back on" with one hand after twisting off. Any tips on one-hand mode switches from you users with better manual dexterity?


 
I don't have much problems with the L0D-RB80 - but often have problems with the L0P-SE "Special" - until I've used it for a while - the Q4 is in betweeny.

I think I may have figure out what the differences are -
The RB80 version is the easiest to twist on/off, the L0P-SE stiffest, and obviously the Q4 in between. 

The reason why the L0P-SE becomes easier with use I think is the lube becomes more slippery (or perhaps I just become more conscious that it needs more attention/effort) to eliminate the jitter on twisting the light back on.

Try it if one changes mode deliberately and _SLOWLY -_ it is pretty reliable - do it quick then there may be jitter/skipping.

So I figured it's probably slight variation in the O-ring - 
so lubing the O-ring helps but it seems the lube needs warming up or activated a few times before the feel is just right for me - 
this is obviously not so good using the light from "cold" - 
however if the light is carried in the pocket - it should be "warm".

Probably the better solution is to change the O-ring to a very slightly thinner one, or just try the supplied spare. 

Has anyone tried "sanding" down an O-ring?


----------



## Lite_me (Feb 11, 2008)

UnknownVT said:


> Has anyone tried "sanding" down an O-ring?


Sure, I've posted instructions in a few different threads. Here's one. CLICK...


----------



## jbviau (Feb 11, 2008)

Nice tip! I might just have to try that.

Unknown, does your L0D show the green outer ring depicted and described in this thread?

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/189263

Mine does. It doesn't really bother me at all, but I'm curious to see what you (and others, of course) think about whether it's an indicator of a problematic emitter or rather purely cosmetic.


----------



## lumenal (Feb 11, 2008)

jbviau said:


> One thing I've noticed is that it's hard to switch modes using only one hand without skipping a mode or two. With two hands I never have problems, but with one hand it's as if the light gets confused. This seems to be due to my failure to twist "all the way back on" with one hand after twisting off. Any tips on one-hand mode switches from you users with better manual dexterity?
> 
> p.s. I'm not using grip tape or even the pocket clip--just index and thumb on the wimpy knurling.


 
I wanted to get a better handle on this light, but I didn't want to apply sticky "grip" tape to it, sooo - 

Rummaging around in a drawer, I found one of my 1 AAA Dorcy flashlights (you know, the $5 one at Wal*Mart).

That knurled rubber sleeve that is on the Dorcy 1 AAA fits nice and snug on the LOD, giving a much better grip for single-handed activation. Doesn't look that bad, either.


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 12, 2008)

jbviau said:


> Unknown, does your L0D show the green outer ring depicted and described in this thread?
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/189263
> Mine does. It doesn't really bother me at all, but I'm curious to see what you (and others, of course) think about whether it's an indicator of a problematic emitter or rather purely cosmetic.


 
Yes, mine does too - here are two ways to show the green outer ring/side-spill -






sideways shot - 
also shows the L0D-RB80 and L0P-SE do not have the green side-spill ring.

Head on shot 




some of the green ring is obscured by my set up....

so....




viewed from the side which shows the lower part of the green side-spill ring better.

_EDIT to ADD -_

Found a better way to take the photo of the green side-spill ring -







same photo - the second version has been "enhanced" - ie: brightness/contrast adjusted to emphasize the green side-spill ring.

It is not "cosmetic" per se - as it's obviously there, but I know what you mean - it does not interfere with any practical use - and only can be seen if the light is held close to a surface. But it is there.


----------



## Illum (Feb 12, 2008)

its more yellow than green on mine...but I suppose it depends on how sensitive our eyes are to the two colors

until I can figure out how to step-down the exposure longer than the 1 second in manual all my close range beamshots come out overloaded:shakehead

mmm..."green" on medium but "yellow" on high


----------



## jbviau (Feb 12, 2008)

I use my camera's macro setting for close-ups...haven't dared to mess with manually adjusting the exposure settings yet!

About the green/yellow ring, I *am* curious about what causes it. I'm assuming it's just a reflection off of the die or some kind of shadow. I mean, it's obvious that the LED itself is not emitting nice white light with green edges, right? Now if the whole beam were pea green I'd be worried.

Anecdotally, the beam from the Wolf Eyes drop-in in my G2 has a green/gray outer ring also (though it's thinner and less noticeable). I always thought it had to with the way light reflects off of the lip on the bezel as it projects. I'll try to take a pic and post it at some point.

Anyway, I can say with certainty that my L0D is a keeper after using it to light up the interior of a dumpster looking for my shoe, which some joker threw down the trash chute in my building last night! Real nice. The medium setting was more than enough to search by, and of course I couldn't see any rings as I poked around. The beam was perfect, so to speak.


----------



## qtaco (Feb 12, 2008)

My theory is that it's light bouncing off the circuit board or LED mount:http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=189263


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 12, 2008)

Received LOD Q4 today (the greenish one I can't for the life of me name)

I got to try medium. Then the battery in my LOP SE (Lith) had no more to give.

I would swear when I look down the reflector the LED is back away a bit from the opening in the reflector.

I went and left it on the desk at work so I can't look it over with a Lupe or magnifying glass before tomorrow night.

My LOP SE seems a bit brighter with a fresh alkaline than it has been lately. This strikes me as odd because the only other light I've killed a Lith in stayed bright until  it was out. The LOP SE seems to have been dimming slightly for a while...


----------



## jbviau (Feb 12, 2008)

Right, I saw that, qtaco. Sounds possible to me. 

Are you still thinking of sending yours back? The output on mine is fine, so I'm happy.


----------



## qtaco (Feb 12, 2008)

I contacted the people I purchased it from and described the situation to see what they thought. On further reflection I think I might be getting a little precious about the whole thing, so I'll probably just keep it. When I first started lurking here (quite some time ago) I remember thinking 'these people must be insane to be worried about silly things (like beam tint) that really don't matter', so perhaps a reality check is in order!


----------



## Illum (Feb 12, 2008)

I once thought the same with artifacts/beam shape when I first got here

half a year of using lights with stochastic reflectors going back to the stock mag was :sick2: [then of course being the flashaholic that I am went and bought an MOP for it and that was that]


----------



## jbviau (Feb 13, 2008)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> I would swear when I look down the reflector the LED is back away a bit from the opening in the reflector.
> 
> I went and left it on the desk at work so I can't look it over with a Lupe or magnifying glass before tomorrow night.



Any updates on this? Just curious...


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 13, 2008)

I don't have lupe or glass at work. I do have the light.

When I look straight down into the reflector I see it is full of phosphor.

I would swear I see the die down below the hole. But I may see the dome and it has me confused.

The beam is pretty good which couldn't be the case if the die was down there below.

On a Rayovac alkaline cell the bright is WORLDS brighter than the LUX LOP SE. Bright on the LOP SE with an identical Rayovac alk is between low and medium on the LOD Q4. The LOD is much more white tint too.

I almost wish it had a LOP reflector, but that's only when I white wall compare the two.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 13, 2008)

At home with an 8x Lupe or a Magnifying Glass I still can't tell for sure.

BUT I do see phosphor even at 8x. I also see machining marks on the reflector as lines around the inside parallel all the way from hole to outside edge.

I also see 4 bond wires on the die.

I suspect what makes me think the die is below is the dome of the LED. I think I see the inside of the dome when looking at it from the side.

Outside in fairly quality dark medium is WAY more light than High on the LOP SE.

I wouldn't feel totally out gunned with just this LOD Q4 on me.


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 14, 2008)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> I wouldn't feel totally out gunned with just this LOD Q4 on me.


 
Right... if a 3.7V Li-Ion 10440 (AAA size) were to be carried for such an occassion - 
a quick turn on High - 
those other flashlights would probably be outgunned ......


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 14, 2008)

More on the "Green Ring" - it is not restricted to the L0D-Q4 - I have found that the Crees seem to have this (at least in the Fenix flashlights - but I only have Crees in Fenix lights)






this sideways shot seems to show all these Cree versions have the green side-spill ring Q5s and P4(?)

Individually -
L1D-CE (P4?)








L1D-Q5







looks more yellow with hints of green but in real-life it looks kind of green or at least yellow-green to me.

L2D-Q5







These hardly needed any enhancing - must be getting better at these shots....


----------



## Illum (Feb 14, 2008)

UnknownVT said:


> More on the "Green Ring" - it is not restricted to the L0D-Q4 - I have found that the Crees seem to have this (at least in the Fenix flashlights - but I only have Crees in Fenix lights)



why does the pics remind me of the "balls of expanding gasses" portrayed on several of youtube's nuclear testing videos?:twothumbs

interesting pix though, I'm guessing CREE's using different types of phosphor in their dies and its coming out slightly off color because of dome refraction...a pretty far stretch for a guy who knows nothing of optics


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 14, 2008)

There is a ring of perhaps green outside of the white spill but I have to look for it and am not bothered by it in any way.

I saw it from MTE Q5 5-mode as well with same result.

If it was around the spot however I would be very disturbed!


----------



## jbviau (Feb 15, 2008)

Nice pics. If anyone ever gets confirmation on the dome refraction story, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Try putting your finger into the beam. Its shadow will have a green outer ring too! I've seen this same effect on shadows under streetlamps before.


----------



## Flic (Feb 18, 2008)

Finally got my two olive Q4s in the mail today after paying ransom to Customs.

Well, my experience mirrors all that has been written so far: "interesting" pattern in the anodizing, sub-par engraving and that green ring in the beam. But I do have something new to report. The working bits in my lights are DIFFERENT. One has the usual Fenix base for the guts in the head (flat board). The other has a solder blob in the middle of the board that must stick out a good millimetre or more.

Anyone else see this? Any ideas as to why/how this would happen? Both lights have the same batch number too.

Confused...

But it's still a kick *** AAA light!!!


----------



## Marduke (Feb 18, 2008)

I'm glad to hear that Fenix may be starting to put a protective solder blob on the board. :twothumbs


----------



## jbviau (Feb 19, 2008)

Flic, any chance you could post some pics? Based on what you described mine does *not* have the solder blob. What would this blob do? Ensure good contact with the battery?


----------



## Flic (Feb 19, 2008)

I asked Fenix about it. They too asked for a picture, but I do not have a camera that takes good extreme close-ups. I did send them the blurry image I had and they asked me to return the light to them for inspection. I just sent it out before leaving on vacation. I expect news from them by the time I get back in a couple of weeks.


----------



## Ninjaz7 (Feb 22, 2008)

I need a new camera......then a lod-q4,my l1p has been a good edc,but this is a gem.


----------



## UnknownVT (Feb 22, 2008)

Flic said:


> But I do have something new to report. The working bits in my lights are DIFFERENT. One has the usual Fenix base for the guts in the head (flat board). The other has a solder blob in the middle of the board that must stick out a good millimetre or more.


 
(_Edit to add the quote - to clarify I was asking Flic about the solder blob_)

Do you mean there is a noticable solder blob on the center contact?





Does it look deliberate/neat, or just excessive overflow?


----------



## Illum (Feb 22, 2008)

UnknownVT said:


> Do you mean there is a noticable solder blob on the center contact?
> 
> Does it look deliberate/neat, or just excessive overflow?



I think Marduke might be referring to solder on the outer ring to prevent the negative contact of the cell from touching the center pin under the circumstance that a cell was installed backwards.

theres no correlation between a center blob and "protective" as far as I can think of, all that would do is increase tension and pressure on the battery and perhaps...just perhaps a bigger area in electrical conductivity


----------



## Spotpuff (Feb 25, 2008)

*edit* nm, checked some other posts, carry on!


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 25, 2008)

Have found that my LOD Q4 has a very small dark spot right in the middle of the beam.

Also I believe because of the spring in the body I can not one hand it to save my butt.

Otherwise kicks butt for a 1AAA light and has nice tint!


----------



## jbviau (Feb 26, 2008)

Right, if I shine mine at a white wall from up to 1 inch away, I can see the little hole in the middle of the hotspot. It's not visible from further away than 1 inch. You have to go looking for it.

I can one-hand this light much better now that I cleaned the threads up.


----------



## Marduke (Feb 26, 2008)

Illum_the_nation said:


> I think Marduke might be referring to solder on the outer ring to prevent the negative contact of the cell from touching the center pin under the circumstance that a cell was installed backwards.
> 
> theres no correlation between a center blob and "protective" as far as I can think of, all that would do is increase tension and pressure on the battery and perhaps...just perhaps a bigger area in electrical conductivity



I was referring to a solder blob on the center + contact. In twist operated lights like the LOD, such a blob can be very protective, acting as a wear plate to keep the relatively thin printed conductive layer shielded from the repetitive twist motion of on/off/power level change, etc. Battery-crusher style twist lights in particular can greatly benefit from this + contact solder blob, as the positive nipple of the battery can quickly dig and gouge the printed contact surface such as this:







I've have started adding a solder blob to the center of my PCB-based + contact lights for this reason.


----------



## Illum (Feb 26, 2008)

ahh...


----------



## Flic (Mar 1, 2008)

UnknownVT said:


> (_Edit to add the quote - to clarify I was asking Flic about the solder blob_)
> 
> Do you mean there is a noticable solder blob on the center contact?
> 
> ...



Sorry, I'm on the road and just saw your post. It has a deliberate and very tidy solder blob on the centre of the board. I'll give you an update when I get news back from Fenix Store. Cannot check my e-mail account until I get back home on March 6th.


----------



## lumenal (Mar 2, 2008)

Marduke said:


> Battery-crusher style twist lights in particular can greatly benefit from this + contact solder blob, as the positive nipple of the battery can quickly dig and gouge the printed contact surface such as this:


Looks like a tiny solder blob is needed on my new LOD...

Anyone's LOD end up looking like Marduke's AAA light up above?

After all, it is a battery-crusher type twist switch...


----------



## Marduke (Mar 2, 2008)

lumenal said:


> Looks like a tiny solder blob is needed on my new LOD...
> 
> Anyone's LOD end up looking like Marduke's AAA light up above?
> 
> After all, it is a battery-crusher type twist switch...



That picture isn't from a LOD, it's from the KD buckle light. The LOD has a spring in the bottom, so it's not a battery crusher type light.


----------



## lumenal (Mar 2, 2008)

Marduke said:


> That picture isn't from a LOD, it's from the KD buckle light. The LOD has a spring in the bottom, so it's not a battery crusher type light.


 
OK, thats good to know.

I just assumed that most (if not all) twisty switch lights have a spring (or piston, like Inovas, among others) that apply pressure on the battery.

Didn't know there are lights made without either...


----------



## Marduke (Mar 2, 2008)

lumenal said:


> OK, thats good to know.
> 
> I just assumed that most (if not all) twisty switch lights have a spring (or piston, like Inovas, among others) that apply pressure on the battery.
> 
> Didn't know there are lights made without either...



The ARC AAA is a "battery crusher" type light that you might be familiar with. It pinches the battery between a positive solder blob, and a negative steel rivet. A giveaway of such lights are ones that use a foam disk to keep the battery from rattling. Such lights are usually quite hard on rechargable cells, often denting them if you tighten down to much. If the light has a PCB for a positive connection, the battery can dig into that contact also.

The Inova X1, although not a "battery crush" style, it's positive spring is strong enough that it can dent the back of rechargable batteries with repeated use.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Mar 3, 2008)

Yep. Fenix P1 is a crusher. Fenix L1 and P2 are spring bottom non crushers.

LOD is not a crusher.


----------



## Flic (Mar 6, 2008)

Okay, here's the poop from FenixStore about the light I reported with the solder blob. At their request I returned the light to them for inspection. They cannot tell me about the light I returned to them other than "It just appears to have possibly come from a different batch". They replaced it and the light I sent back "was put back on the shelf, and as such is more than likely sold already". 

If anybody gets this light, please get a good camera and post pics here. I want to know what the story is on this one. (Was it a light that had been repaired? Was it a different build being evaluated by the manufacturer? Was it designed for another market????).

I've bought DOZENS of L0x lights and this was the ONLY onethat looked like that.

Signed,

Disappointed

Note: Post edited 2008-03-11


----------



## 4sevens (Mar 6, 2008)

Flic said:


> Okay, here's the poop from FenixStore about the light I reported with the solder blob. At their request I returned the light to them for inspection. They cannot tell me squat about the light I returned to them other than "It just appears to have possibly come from a different batch". They replaced it and when I asked to get the original light back they said it "was put back on the shelf, and as such is more than likely sold already".
> 
> If anybody gets this light, please get a good camera and post pics here. I want to know what the story is on this one.
> 
> ...


Flic, firstly, I'm sorry that you are so upset that we
did not send your original light back and that you had to pay for S&H.

I am refunding you S&H costs of $8 CDN right now.

I am reading through your conversation with one of my employees in training.
It looks like he suggested that you return the head before establishing
whether there was a problem. I also noticed that you had suggested
that we return the head or send a replacement on two occasions.
You also suggested that it might be a collectors item.

I am at home now, but tomorrow I'll try to locate the head - it may be in
the RMA queue for more detailed inspection. If I find it I can make sure you
get it back. At the very least I will snap some pictures for you.

As far as the solder blob goes, we really don't know why. That is why we
do not have an answer for you. We guessed that perhaps it was from 
another batch of L0D's. We do not examine and test all our lights that we
sell. We simply fulfill orders and take care of customers when there are 
problems. 

I was surprised when we received your L0D head back because there was
not reason to since it was working perfectly. If there was something wrong
we would have gladly resolved the problem. And to alleviate any further
issues, I asked him to just send you a new one. I never imagined that
you would be upset.

I hope the new light and the refund on your return shipping makes everything
ok. I know you had asked for some freebies and I don't know if he included
anything. I'll check with him tomorrow when I'm back in the office.

Feel free to contact me directly if you're still unhappy. [email protected]

thanks
David


----------



## PhotonBoy (Mar 7, 2008)

Excellent customer service 7777!! :goodjob:


----------



## Lightening (Mar 7, 2008)

Very impressed that you stay on top of things as you do David.

BTW, Love my Fenix lights!:twothumbs


----------



## jbviau (Mar 7, 2008)

Right, what more could one ask for? Personally, I wouldn't have sent the L0D with the solder blob back in the first place, but that's beside the point.

Flic, does your new L0D still have that spiderweb pattern on the flat parts?


----------



## Flic (Mar 11, 2008)

Okay, lesson learned - NEVER answer e-mails or post on forums right after spending 12 hours (including 5 seemingly endless hours at O'Hare) in ariports and on planes. Just edited my last post. 

The wording may have been strong, but I really was disappointed. What I really wanted more than anything was to know about this light (engineering sample that got through, repaired unit, build for a different market????). Yes, I should have kept it and found a better camera.

David, you are by far the dealer who pays the most attention to these boards! Thanks for your quick response. Exemplary as always!

Any chance you can tell us more?

Jbviau, no spiderweb pattern at all. Near perfect finish on this unit with only the slightest colour mismatch with the head.

And this light is probably the absolute best AAA light I own (and I've got a few that are a lot more expensive!).


----------



## tsask (Mar 11, 2008)

David is a good guy who cares about his customers. 

He also has a legion of loyal customers who look out for him.
You can not go wrong buying a Fenix from 4 Sevens.
With 21st century technology, it's nice to see "19th century" customer appreciation. 

Fenix-Store, Lighthound, BatteryJunction,and Brightguy are excellent dealers.:twothumbs


----------



## 4sevens (Mar 11, 2008)

Flic said:


> Okay, lesson learned - NEVER answer e-mails or post on forums right after spending 12 hours (including 5 seemingly endless hours at O'Hare) in ariports and on planes. Just edited my last post.
> 
> The wording may have been strong, but I really was disappointed. What I really wanted more than anything was to know about this light (engineering sample that got through, repaired unit, build for a different market????). Yes, I should have kept it and found a better camera.
> 
> ...


I talked to my CS guys and personally looked around in the warehouse and 
did not find it. It was a fully functional unit with a blemish so I believe it
went out already. For you sake, I did look through a few of them in
our stock and none of them had the blob. I'm sure it's no biggie at all.
Some members here even add their own blobs.


----------



## Sarratt (Mar 11, 2008)

David , these last several posts highlighting your customer service has tipped me over the edge. 
I'll be ordering an L0D Q5 very soon.

I just wish the Customs wasn't such a lottery. 

If Flic is still reading this may I ask how much Customs charged you ? I'm just wondering what the rate is on a 46$ light.

S


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Mar 11, 2008)

Ain't gonna be long before I order something with a Rebel in it, from David OF COURSE!!!


----------



## Flic (Mar 11, 2008)

Sarratt said:


> David , these last several posts highlighting your customer service has tipped me over the edge.
> I'll be ordering an L0D Q5 very soon.
> 
> I just wish the Customs wasn't such a lottery.
> ...



To be fair, the vast majority of orders from Fenix Store have gone under the CRA radar. My last order had two lights and a value of approx. $90. IF you get hit, you will only pay sales tax (plus a $5 handling fee to Canada Post).

But remember Fenix Store offers free shipping and an 8% discount to CPF members. What ticks me off most is when CRA takes two to three weeks to process the package. It is rare but when it happens it's a bummer.

My advice is - Do not hesitate! This is a GREAT light from a GREAT seller. The light works great on Nimh rechargeables, but I love the Energizer Lithiums.


----------



## Sarratt (Mar 11, 2008)

Flic said:


> .......
> My advice is - Do not hesitate! ........




Order placed , with CPF8 code.... Now the waiting.

My last order of a L2D Q5 got here pretty fast , just over a week if I remember correctly.
I hadn't heard about the 2 -3 week holdup ... now you've got me worried.
(kidding)


----------



## Spotpuff (Mar 13, 2008)

Sarratt said:


> David , these last several posts highlighting your customer service has tipped me over the edge.
> I'll be ordering an L0D Q5 very soon.
> 
> I just wish the Customs wasn't such a lottery.
> ...



www.fenixtactical.com is in Canada and so you don't get charged customs. I've had good experiences with ship times and customer service ordering from there. 4sevens is great too, but the shipping time and customs lottery is not as good.

Decision's yours of course, just wanted to offer an alternative where you for sure won't get customs charges.


----------



## jbviau (Mar 13, 2008)

It's cool to have dealers like 4sevens posting in this thread.

Back to how the light performs, I recently bit the bullet and ordered a set of 10440s from AW. The OP's beamshots made me want to give these a try. So far I've just been running them in short bursts in my L0D Q4. Here's my experience in a nutshell:

Medium is fine (as bright as high on an Eneloop), but on fresh batteries I see what someone else described in a different thread as the light equivalent of a "rough idle," almost as if the hotspot is vibrating. I don't think this is PWM, but I could be wrong. The same is true in low, plus I get some random flickering. Once my 10440 has a few minutes of intermittent use on it, the rough idle and flickering go away in these modes, presumably due to the battery dropping in voltage. I don't have a multimeter, so I can't check voltage levels.

High of course is always great, unbelievable even. Seriously, to my eyes it's about equal to the WE high-output Cree P4 drop-in that I run in my G2. I haven't left the light on in high mode for more than 30 sec. or so. During that time the head rises noticeably in temperature, but not at an alarming rate. 

I should add that I haven't observed any problems with the light upon switching back to Eneloops after my short 10440 sessions. It seems no damage whatsoever is being done to the emitter, at least according to my eyes.

Anyone else have similar experiences with or thoughts about 10440s in the Q4 version?


----------



## PhotonBoy (Mar 13, 2008)

I'm in Nova Scotia; I've ordered four (4) L0P CE Q4 lights from Fenix-Store (all at different times) and I haven't paid customs/duties/tax even once.


----------



## Flic (Mar 13, 2008)

I am interested in getting some 10440s as well so I appreciate your comments jbviau. In your opinion are these batteries it worth it given cost/runtime/heat, etc.? 

Any other reports of how the Q4 behaves on 10440s?


----------



## UnknownVT (Mar 13, 2008)

Flic said:


> Any other reports of how the Q4 behaves on 10440s?


 
My stairway beamshots are of the L0D-Q4 (and L0Drb80) on 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion 10440 - in post #*22* .


----------



## jbviau (Mar 13, 2008)

Flic said:


> In your opinion are these batteries it worth it given cost/runtime/heat, etc.?



Hi, Flic. It might be better to ask people who have used 10440s regularly, as opposed to my 2 minutes here, 1 minute there. I only ordered 10440s out of pure curiosity re: what the light could do and how bright it could actually get. Wasn't disappointed at all from that perspective. Honestly though, I worry a bit about these batteries. They're from AW, so I feel confident they're reliable, but from what I've read you need to make sure they aren't overcharged (i.e. don't leave them charging once the green light comes on) or undercharged (i.e. top up frequently). It all makes me feel a little bit uncomfortable. Incidentally, this is exactly how I feel when I mess around with my green laser. It's powerful enough that I have to be cautious. Know what I mean?

edit: About runtime/heat, see also the OP's post #55 for great info.



Flic said:


> Any other reports of how the Q4 behaves on 10440s?



I remember reading a few scattered reports here (where the rough idle comment originated): https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/190793


----------



## tsask (Mar 17, 2008)

I've got a CREE pre Q4 version. for six months I've used 10440s, no flicker, no problems. I've gone back to AAA alks once, because the 10440 cell was low. I MUCH prefer 10440s.:twothumbs why fool around with anything else?


----------



## Illum (Mar 24, 2008)

I think I have an explanation for the green ring...its obvious so someone probably found out already.

the inside wall of the metal ring on the CREE assembly is emerald green. Its a very pretty color but I have no clue what its for, perhaps PCB traces enlarged by the aspheric dome of the emitter, i am not sure.
Ignore the blue light...its reflecting light off my computer screen








could the "ring" simply just light reflected off the inner wall of the CREE emitter?


----------



## Sarratt (Mar 26, 2008)

Received my LOD-Q4 and it's all that I expected. :twothumbs

Of course I had to compare and was surprised that the Q4 was so much whiter than my Q5 (l2d).

btw ... it arrived on the 25th with no customs. 13 days...even with the Easter holiday in that time.


----------



## tsask (Mar 26, 2008)

Sarratt said:


> Received my LOD-Q4 and it's all that I expected. :twothumbs.


 
WTG! Enjoy. I use mine nearly every day. Love it on 10440s!


----------



## tusenkonstnar (May 21, 2008)

One question when it comes to throw. 
Last summer/autumn I bought a L0D-CE (non Q4) for myself because I prefered the smaller dimensinos compared to L1D-CE although the lumen rating was not as good at the L0D. Then I bought a L1D-CE for my Brother and then I saw that there where HUGE difference when it came to throw. 

Is that difference still as big if comparing a L0D-Q4 with hte L1D-Q5? 

And how does the L0D-Q4 compare to the L1D-CE ("old" one)


BR


----------



## PhotonBoy (May 21, 2008)

Personally, if all I could have is one light on my person, the L0D CE Q4 is it. Small, bright, multiple levels.


----------



## paulr (May 21, 2008)

tusenkonstnar said:


> One question when it comes to throw.
> Last summer/autumn I bought a L0D-CE (non Q4) for myself because I prefered the smaller dimensinos compared to L1D-CE although the lumen rating was not as good at the L0D. Then I bought a L1D-CE for my Brother and then I saw that there where HUGE difference when it came to throw.
> 
> Is that difference still as big if comparing a L0D-Q4 with hte L1D-Q5?
> ...


The extra throw is partly from the lumen difference and partly from the bigger reflector.

I don't like the L1DCE UI and construction nearly as much as the L0D, but that's just me.

I think if I wanted a more powerful Fenix to back up the L0D, I'd go for the P3D Q5. Same interface as L1DCE (i.e. I don't like it) but much more powerful.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 21, 2008)

tusenkonstnar said:


> Then I bought a L1D-CE for my Brother and then I saw that there where HUGE difference when it came to throw.
> Is that difference still as big if comparing a L0D-Q4 with hte L1D-Q5?
> And how does the L0D-Q4 compare to the L1D-CE ("old" one)


 
Throw is dependent on both brightness and the reflector.

The Q4 in the L0D is in roughly the same ballpark output as the plain P4 CE and Q5 - so it's the reflector that probably would the main difference when it comes to throw.

The L1Dxx has (relatively speaking) a much larger reflector which can concentrate more of the light into the hotspot - therefore giving better throw.

Here are my stairway beamshots -



















as can be seen the L1D hotspot is much brighter than the L0D-Q4 even when that is on a 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion 10440 -
however the overall output of the L0D-Q4 is very impressive for such a tiny light running on a single AAA sized battery.


----------



## LED-holic (May 21, 2008)

I'm debating between the L0D-Q4 and LF2X at this moment.

The L0D-Q4 looks very nice, nicer than the LF2X imho, but the LF2X is brighter and dimmer too. However the interace of the LF2X may be very confusing.

What are your thoughts / votes on L0D-Q4 vs LF2X? Which one would you buy?


----------



## jbviau (May 21, 2008)

LED-holic, this thread has exactly the kinds of comparisons you'd want to see:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/197358

The low on the L0D is low enough for me, and the high is high enough, so I see no reason to get the LF2X. The LF2X does seem like a nice light though despite the price bump. You can judge for yourself which is brighter on 10440s. I don't see much difference, but the L0D might have the edge.


----------



## this_is_nascar (May 21, 2008)

LED-holic said:


> I'm debating between the L0D-Q4 and LF2X at this moment.
> 
> The L0D-Q4 looks very nice, nicer than the LF2X imho, but the LF2X is brighter and dimmer too. However the interace of the LF2X may be very confusing.
> 
> What are your thoughts / votes on L0D-Q4 vs LF2X? Which one would you buy?



I have both and if I could only keep one, it would be the LF2X. Programming this light absolutely sucks, bottom line. That being said, once you get through that and get your P1 and P2 set, you're good to go. I have mine set at the lowest level on P1 and about 35% brightness on P2. I use nothing else on the light. No strobe, no blinking, no SOS, no washing the car, etc. P1 and P2 and that's it. If you want no configuration settings to worry about and no ability to customize your light, the LOD-Q4 would be better in my opinion. As a matter of fact, the only reason I got the LF2X is that fact that it's the only 1 x AAA light that has ability to dial down that low of a beam.


----------



## LED-holic (May 21, 2008)

Thanks for the info. Wish I had one of each to play with for a minute or so, so I could quickly decide.


----------



## jbviau (May 21, 2008)

It's really easy to sell lights in the Marketplace here, especially if you've taken good care of them. Why not just buy both and then sell the one you like less for a few bucks off? Think of it as an almost free trial period.


----------



## LED-holic (May 22, 2008)

jbviau said:


> It's really easy to sell lights in the Marketplace here, especially if you've taken good care of them. Why not just buy both and then sell the one you like less for a few bucks off? Think of it as an almost free trial period.


Thank you. That is exactly what I'm going to do. :twothumbs

Only worry is if I really like both lights and don't want to sell them. :mecry:

Thanks again!


----------



## Lermite (May 22, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> I have both and if I could only keep one, it would be the LF2X. ..


Same here. I'd keep the LF2X rather the L0D, for several reasons:
- LF2X is more powerfull
- the light level can be set freely, from extremely low to very high.
- the LF2X's clip don't move
- LF2X UI is awesome, even if it may seems complicated
- LF2X has overdischarge protection, wich is quite usefull with 10440 or even Ni-MH AAA.
- LF2X can display the battery voltage
- On OFF position, the LF2X is tighten while the L0D is unscrewed and can get on itself in a pocket if it isn't unscrewed enough.
I could make this list longer because I think the LF2X is better than the L0D from every points of view.


----------



## tusenkonstnar (May 22, 2008)

What about the trow of the LF2x compared to L0D- Q4?


----------



## Lermite (May 22, 2008)

tusenkonstnar said:


> What about the trow of the LF2x compared to L0D- Q4?


You can compare them with my beamshots:
http://lermite.nerim.net/beamshots/
Click on the english flag on the right, then select "Uncentered wall" in the first list. The flashlights list will have the L0D CE, wich have the same beam than the Q4 and around the same power, and the LF2X.

In case my web site would seem too complicated, here is a sample:

L0D with 10440:





LF2X with 10440:





With another camera settings:
L0D with AAA Ni-MH:




LF2X with AAA Ni-MH:


----------



## tusenkonstnar (May 22, 2008)

Lermite said:


> You can compare them with my beamshots:
> http://lermite.nerim.net/beamshots/
> Click on the english flag on the right, then select "Uncentered wall" in the first list. The flashlights list will have the L0D CE, wich have the same beam than the Q4 and around the same power, and the LF2X.
> 
> ...



Excellent website!!
As what I can see the LF2X seems to have better throw!


----------



## regulator (May 22, 2008)

I have the LF2X and LOD-Q4. I like the LF2X better. The LF2X is just so cool in that it can be programmed just how you like. The very low is also very nice in dark environments. The beam on mine throws a bit better due to the ever so slightly larger reflector. The finish is a bit slippery but it looks great.

From the runtime graphs the LF2X has better regulation (flat). I did some rough runtime comparisons by setting the LF2X output to match the LOD on medium (both running a standard alkaline cell) and they both had about equal runtime. Since the LOD is a relatively efficient small multiple output AAA light (and a very good light to match up against) I was very happy that the feature rich LF2X was able to match while having much more flexibility. 

The LOD is a great light also and I can see some instances where it would be prefered. It is a bit lighter and smaller. I also find it easier to operate one handed. If programming or complex lights are not your thing - the LOD is better suited.


----------



## LED-holic (May 22, 2008)

Thanks. In the CPF tradition I ordered both to evaluate.


----------



## Art (Oct 19, 2008)

Hi,
I was searching in the net for flashlights and ended up always on this forum so I just regitered myself :naughty:
Hope Im not beaking any rule by posting here the first time.

So why Im posting here , I just boght some Fenix L0D CE Q4 actually I bought 5 , one for me and 4 for some friends.
I love the light , used for nearly 15years a MAG Solitaire and the L0D is another world! :twothumbs
The question is that the lights are not all equal and the big diference for me is that one os them has a yellow part around the led and the others have a silver color part there. The green side is the same on both...

Here is a foto and hope its not to big:

http://nurburgring2.com.sapo.pt/2L0D.JPG

Tested both lights and the yellow leded on seems to be more "blue" and the others more white.
Tested to film them with a camera and the yellow one in primary mod shows a smoth on and off light and the silver ones show a flashy patern.. I can post a video if you dont know what Im talking about.

Here a beam shot of both with 2 new AAA alkaline:






Left the yellow leded right the silver one.

Is it just me or there is really a diference?

Regards,

Artur Costa





_over sized image changed to link_


----------



## Marduke (Oct 19, 2008)

Sounds like you activated strobe on the one.

The yellow core vs silver core is the difference of where the LED was made. Yellow core is USA, silver core is assembled in China.

:welcome:


----------



## Art (Oct 19, 2008)

Marduke said:


> Sounds like you activated strobe on the one.
> 
> The yellow core vs silver core is the difference of where the LED was made. Yellow core is USA, silver core is assembled in China.
> 
> :welcome:



Thanks for the welcome :thumbsup:

No its not the strobe mode.
I will try to post a video of that but its simple , both on primary have the PWM modulation , to our eyes we do not notice the "sintilation" but the camera does (like filming a TV with 50hz...).
The silver one flashes and the yellow just goes on and off slowly.

But give me a minute I will try to post the video here.

BTW , I did not notice that my post was ok , thought it was a erro so did onther post in the flashlights part.
Can a moderator move this posts there or delete the other? Sorry about that.

Regards,

EDIT: The video here : http://nurburgring2.com.sapo.pt/L0DC.mp4


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Oct 19, 2008)

RE: L1D (or P2D) Q5 UI...

I find the P2D to be one heck of a light! I simply LOVE L,M,H in general mode! I just got a Wolf Eyes Sniper with H,M,L and Strobe and a Dereelight module with H,M,L (but at least with memory!) and I much prefer L,M,H for everyday use!

The LOD Q4 is a mighty nice light made EVER so much better by putting the head on a Streamlight Microstream body with a forward clickie!

I carry P2D and LOD as primary and backup EDC on work days (and often on weekends!).

I don't have any 14500 or 10440 cells but may have to get some before it's over.

Have and USE 17670 and 18650!!!


----------



## Art (Oct 20, 2008)

Any help on the USA vs China led?

Will probably open a topic only for this if its ok since I have some more info with me.

Regards,


----------



## UnknownVT (Oct 20, 2008)

Art said:


> .
> I will try to post a video of that but its simple , both on primary have the PWM modulation , to our eyes we do not notice the "sintilation" but the camera does (like filming a TV with 50hz...).
> The silver one flashes and the yellow just goes on and off slowly.
> EDIT: The video here : http://nurburgring2.com.sapo.pt/L0DC.mp4


 
I think what you are seeing is the combination/interference between the PWM frequency and the screen refresh frequency of your camera's LCD - resulting in a beat frequency (Wikipedia link).

This would mean that the PWM frequencies are different between your two samples of the L0D-Q4 - 
I don't think this is due to any difference between the the LED emitters, but due to the circuit.


----------



## Art (Oct 20, 2008)

UnknownVT said:


> I think what you are seeing is the combination/interference between the PWM frequency and the screen refresh frequency of your camera's LCD - resulting in a beat frequency (Wikipedia link).
> 
> This would mean that the PWM frequencies are different between your two samples of the L0D-Q4 -
> I don't think this is due to any difference between the the LED emitters, but due to the circuit.



I can put the 5 L0Ds here and only the yellow ones (found out its actualy 2 USA 3 China) do that.
Seems to have a different modulation so probably the diference is bigger then I tought.
Fenix answered me that the is a 7 to 10% diference that they consider normal production diference...

Regards,


----------



## Marduke (Oct 20, 2008)

Art said:


> Any help on the USA vs China led?



Help with what?

Does it really matter that you can film the PWM if you can't visualize the difference in real life?


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Oct 20, 2008)

I can CLEARLY see the PWM in low and medium...

Makes fan blades stand still and water looks funny coming from faucet....

Still a great backup EDC!


----------



## Art (Oct 21, 2008)

Marduke said:


> Help with what?
> 
> Does it really matter that you can film the PWM if you can't visualize the difference in real life?



Since they have diferent Pulse with modulation probably the energy consumption would be diferent.
But I received a mail from fenix and they explain that they can have 7 to 10% diference between Asia and USA led and that between USA and another USA led (not just the led but the PWM and the reflectors) is also 10%.
Its just regular manufacturing tolerances they say :thumbsup:

Im using some AAA NiMh 1000mah now and its better than regular alkaline... but once they start to fade they fade faster.

Regards


----------



## UnknownVT (Oct 21, 2008)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> I can CLEARLY see the PWM in low and medium...
> Makes fan blades stand still and water looks funny coming from faucet....


 
Same here - there are times when the PWM annoys - 
but most of the time I find it pretty cool - 
eg: checking if equipment/PC fan is working.


----------



## Black Rose (Nov 11, 2008)

Has anyone ever determined what the actual lumen output of the L0D-Q4 is on high? It's advertised as being 75.

The reason I ask is that while playing around with L0D-Q4 and a Rayovac Sportsman Xtreme with a 1 watt Luxeon in it (advertised as 45 lumens) the other night, I found that when shining the hotspot of the two lights at the same place from the same distance, the hotspot of the Rayovac was brighter than the L0D-Q4. :thinking: 

I know it's not a fair comparison since the hotspot of the ROV is tighter than the L0D's, but I was expecting the L0D to be brighter.

The L0D has an Energizer L92 in it that reads 1.63v under load.

The L0d is still a great light, I just found it a bit odd that a "lowly" Luxeon produced a brighter hotspot than the Cree Q4.


----------



## Flic (Nov 11, 2008)

Lumens are a measure of total light output. The L0D may well produce more light than the Rayovac, but the larger reflector of the Rayovac focuses the light more.

My 0.02....


----------



## cybersoga (Nov 11, 2008)

The L0D is an old, obsolete model. It has just been replaced by the LD01.


----------



## Black Rose (Nov 11, 2008)

I think a lot of folks would challenge you on the "obsolete" statement.

The LD01 has only gone up one level on the LED ladder (Q4 -> Q5) with negligible improvement in raw output.


----------



## Bullwinkle (Nov 11, 2008)

not sure, but can the new Ld01 run 10440 recharg? That is one of the things I like about my LOD q4, being able to run all the different batts.


----------



## kaichu dento (Nov 11, 2008)

cybersoga said:


> The L0D is an old, obsolete model. It has just been replaced by the LD01.


The L0D and LD01 could probably run concurrently and be thought of as variations of the same model. Some of us who knew how avoid strobe unless we wanted it didn't mind having it available and my olive L0D will not be seeing itself replaced in the foreseeable future; it's so good looking.


----------



## UnknownVT (Nov 13, 2008)

Black Rose said:


> The L0d is still a great light, I just found it a bit odd that a "lowly" Luxeon produced a brighter hotspot than the Cree Q4.


 
Yes, that's why it's hard to judge a light by raw figures alone.

Throw is dependent on reflector design - or more correctly how the light can be collimated/concentrated - whereas lumens is just the total light output.

An extreme, but easy example is to take a normal 60watt household light bulb and compare it to a 2AA MiniMag which can be focussed to a fairly tight spot - the MiniMag will win easily on any distance beyond about 15 feet - in fact anywhere indoors the MiniMag will be able to show/throw its spot brighter than the household bulb (other than on the bulb itself, or immediate surroundings) - which should lead us to believe the MiniMag is brighter? Not by a long chalk...... the MiniMag is rated at some lowly approx 15 lumens - and the 60watt household bulb? - about 850 lumens on average - that's about 5,667% (~57x) brighter!

Here's an illustrative example -
Outdoors (target about 11 yards/10 metres) color removed by desaturation to make comparison easier -








on looking at these the Dorcy 1watt 3D would seem a lot brighter

BUT -












now one can see the SureFire 9P is brighter (although the Dorcy still shows a much brighter/concentrated hotspot) - so it should be, as the SF9P is a now legendary xenon 3x CR123 light that was regarded at one time as "ridiculously bright" - rated at 105 lumens - the Dorcy 1watt 3D although probably overdriven cannot be rated at much more than about ~45 LED lumens(?) - it's the big and well designed reflector that made all the difference, and the SF9P is no slouch in throw......

_EDIT to ADD_ -
I no longer have the L0D-Q4 I reviewed - but still have the Fenix L0D-RB80 which was rated at 60 lumens about 25% less bright than the Q4 version - look back at the opening post to see the side-by-side comparison beamshot where it was pretty obvious the Q4 was brighter than the RB80 version on alkaline or NiMH. 

I just added this stairway beamshot of the Fenix L0D-RB80 (color removed by desaturation) - and one can see that it is brighter than the over-achieving Dorcy 1watt 3D - so a L0D-Q4 would be brighter still in comparison.


----------

